If only there was some place in the Bible that said Mary and Joseph consumated their marriage sexually this could be resolved. Matthew 1:23 (speaking of Joseph)“and did not know her TILL had brought forth her firstborn.” Seems clear to me.
I want to say that I am impressed with your knowledge of the scripture, and that you seem to actually care to seek the Truth.
Jay Pyatt
Job 28:28
brute4c posted:
Unfortunately, what you may have learned through pious parents, nuns, teachers, or literature of a generation ago is not official RCC teaching. The official teaching can be found in the post-Vatican II document, Marialis Cultis (On the Veneration of Mary), and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Anything you may have heard about Mary that is not in either of these two documents is not official Church teaching or belief.
It depends what you mean by ordinary. Official Teaching (OT) is that she was an ordinary human being, except for being conceived immaculately. Unofficial Teaching (UT, i.e., theological speculation by many theologians) suggests that we all may be immaculately conceived since the offer of salvation in Christ extends to all people from the beginning of time. Yes, this UT does depart from OT’s notion that we’re born in Original Sin and baptism ‘washes’ it away. However, traditional original sin theology (a medieval construct) has problems with OT’s declaration that the unbaptized can be saved in some way apart from a physical baptism. The discussion of this is very difficult, very nuanced, and a very touchy subject.
However, it is OT that Mary was capable of sinning if she wanted to (that Free Will thing, you know). And that 1000 angel thing is pure pop myth, not OT.
Now, you see, this demonstrates the problem that many Catholics without a good, modern religious education have when they talk about such things. Mary never spoke Latin. Medieval and pop theology about Mary are stuck in a non-historical, non-critical naivete.
No longer OT. A medieval mindset understood virginity in a very materialistic way, i.e., an intact hymen. Belief in perpetual virginity would then necessitate this myth that the birth of Jesus occurred not naturally, but in a miraculous way so that Mary’s hymen remained intact. Also, medievalists though it fitting that Mary would be spared any pain in life (esp., one that came as a curse from God to Eve for her disobedience), and so God spared Mary from the pain of childbirth. Today, we know that the hymen can break in other ways besides sexual intercourse and we do not define virginity in that way. So, Mary gave birth naturally, as befitting a core Christian belief that Jesus was fully human.
This is certainly extra-biblical speculation. Many early Church Fathers believed this and claimed that this information was handed on by tradition (not the Bible). However, the documentary evidence that the very first generations of Christians believed this and were teaching this is missing. This belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary became enshrined in official dogmatic teaching as a matter of tradition and faith, not as a matter of scriptural witness.
Ack! With regard to private revelations such as these, it is OT that no one is obliged to believe in them except the person who receives them. And yes, even if the revelations are ‘accepted’ or ‘approved’ or ‘authenticated’ by the Church. RCC approbation of visions simply means that there is no deception involved and that beleif in those visions is not damaging to the faith. Also, keep in mind that the ‘authentification’ of this nun’s visions (if indeed they were authenticated, I never heard of her) was done several centuries ago when the criteria for authenticity were, shall we say, much less rigorous than they were today. IOW, there are plenty of visionaries today who are saying the same thing as this nun, and they’re not passing the test.
Thank-you for your homiletic exhortation, but I believe, as a general policy, the administration of this board would prefer its members not to proselytize in this forum.
Peace.
Ack! blush I meant Joseph. Whoosh! There went my credibility.
As Utah Philips said “You know, when your memory goes, just forget it!”
Your Quadell
Lumpy Wrote:
One needs to remember that in virtually all pre-industrial societies, a young unmarried woman BETTER be a virgin in the sexual sense, or else. Given that social context, it seems pretty clear that the writers of the New Testament were claiming that Mary had never had sex before Jesus was born.
Lumpy, I haven’t gone out and done a detailed literature search, but I suspect that this is about 180 degrees wrong.
- In general, people like sex. Premarital sex wasn’t invented in the 1960s, and despite religious teachings to the contrary, pre-marital sex is part of the human experience across societies. I mean, these people didn’t have cable or sports bars or romance novels or movies–what do you want them to do for fun?
(Sure some people wait–and if you want to fine. But like they used to say–the first child can come any time after marriage. The second child takes nine months.) - For the mass of people in pre-agricultural societies, marriage (or the equivalent) would have been unlikely UNLESS a woman was pregnant, thus proving fertility. And frankly, even as we see the transition to agriculture and then industrial societies, no matter what the public pronouncements, the triggering event for marriage will frequently be pregnancy. For example, surveys of the early Puritans show that approximately 2/3s of the brides were pregnant (this from an anthropology class many years ago. I believe the professor who told me but you’ll need to do your own research if you want more).
- Marvin Harris, in a couple of popular books, dealt with the problems arising from efforts to suppress fertility in order to protect a lifestyle, and imbuing virginity and bans on pre-marital sex with approval from God is one of those efforts. Not always successful, but some people will do what the voice of God tells them to do.
- Finally, this whole “BETTER . . .or else” thing. Or else what?
Totally of the thread, just to take a break from all the deep thinking. When Joshua ben Joseph was working there in the shop with his dad, making little Arks out of shittem, acacia, maybe even boisdarc to sell to the tourists just exactly did he say when he hit his thumb with the mallet? I am a carpenter, the son of a carpenter, and the grandson of a carpenter and I know what we say. (We’ll be there bright and early tomorrow, you go ahead and rip the siding off.)
Errata
Totally of the thread OFF the thread
just exactly did he say exactly WHAT did He say
Mr John raises indirectly a point that has puzzled me for years. If Jesus lived and trained with Joseph, a carpenter, why didn’t he EVER use carpenter allusions in his teaching? Lots of stuff about sheep and shepherds and grape vines and fishermen, but nary a word about square and plumb and measure twice/cut once. I have always found it hard to believe that he could have spent 30 years or so in a carpenter’s shop and not picked up the lingo/imagery. Were I a divinity student, I would pick this as a thesis!
Billkat,
This is merely speculation, but it is generally believed that Jesus’ used the parables and analogies that He did not because He was a carpenter, but importantly, because the populus WAS NOT. The lingo, and methodology of carpentry back then was not known to everybody. Sheep and grapes were. If you’ve been a sheep herder all of your life, and most people at least owned sheep back then, then you were very apt to catch on to his parables.
I recently learned from our local preist that the term “Immaculate Conception” is not what we ususally think at all. The truth here is that it was Mary herself that was conceived immaculately- or without sin. It has nothing to do with sex at all- the lack or presence thereof.She was made without original sin in order to bear the divine infant.
Also as far as brothers and sisters go- it was very commen back then for the father(Joseph) to have extramarital affairs. Thus by the human sense affording Jesus any number of half brothers and sisters.If you want to look at the spiritual sense- God is THE father. He is all of ours true father making us all Jesus’ half siblings.
It is interesting that Christianity’s (especially the RC Church) ideal woman is both a virgin and a mother. But of course the Christian tradition is to condemn female sexuality, while revering motherhood. What more perfect emblem of this tradition than a virgin mother?
Exactly.
Your Quadell
[[Thank-you for your homiletic exhortation, but I believe, as a general policy, the administration of this board would prefer its members not to proselytize in this forum.]]
Generally, yeah, but on a thread like this a little of that is relevant to the topic.
It’s a sad fact that many people - in the name of Christ - have treated women with less than respect. However, that is not the example set by Christ himself. Consider: 1. Jesus treated a Samaritan womn with great respect in John Chapter 4. This, in an age and in a society in which women truly were treated as chattle. 2. The woman brought to Jesus caught in the act of adulerty (I always wonder, why didn’t they get the guy?) Instead of calling for her death as the religious people of the day expected, He forgave her. This was astonishing. 3. In an era in which men would divorce women almost by a whim, and the woman had no rights at all, Jesus condemned that practice in no uncertain terms while upholding the sanctity of marriage. 4. It could be argued the Jesus’s best friends were women. When His disciples deserted him at His crucifixion, women remained at the base of the cross, and went to the garden tomb after his burial to tend to his grave. In fact, the first person to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection was a woman. Sounds like the women of the day were attracted to His message. Too bad, Christians since then have not done too well to uphold that example.
This is, of course, what I was attempting, and obviously failing, to convey.
One other thing that has not been considered: The church was a political as well as a religious body. It was important that Jesus not have siblings so that no “decendants” could show up and lead some sort of anti-papist movement; the line of apostolitic succesion had to remain unchallenged. To compare, with Islam 700 years latter there were two competing lines of succesion–through Fatima and Ali, Mohammed’s daughter and cousin/son-in-law, and through the caliphs. This power struggle resulted in the Shia/ Sunni division that plauges Islam to this day. Note that I am not stateing any sort of opinion on whether or not their were siblings. This seems inately unprovable to me. The political neccesity demanded the “perpetual virgin story” so that any “decendants,” pretenders or genuine, could be ignored.
As a side note, the trend toward priestly celibacy also had a political basis. People did not want powerful dioceses or the papacy to become hereditary. (And if they were de facto hereditary for a few generations, well, that was easier to dislodge than an official dynasty.)
The discussion about Jesus and his brothers comes along about as often as that Nieman Marcus cookie recipe.
One Catholic apologist’s explanation can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/brethren.htm
The truly bold can read St Jerome’s defense of Mary’s virginity, which he wrote in 383:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm
Just so we are all clear on what the Catholic church’s stance is on the subject, here is an excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“…the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions the brothers and sisters lf Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.”
If “the seemingly plain meaning of the text” is so obvious, why would the Catholic church include it in the New Testament when they put it together back in 397? Didn’t they know what it said?
One last thing. The article said “According to Catholic belief, Mary was “ever virgin”–she got married and conceived and bore a child”. Of course , she and Joseph weren’t married when she became pregnant.
On this subject, wasn’t there an author/media-whore with some jiggery-quacked theory about the line of Christ’s decendents moving to France? From what I can recall from a TV special, he claimed that the secret kept evidence of such was in some abbey somewhere and the term holy grail actually refered to Jesus’s family.
Yeah, ‘cause Jesus’ brother James married Elizabeth Grail, but he was so embarrassed about his brother’s picture and little icons being on public display everywhere, that he adopted her last name and moved to the south coast of France, where they live to this day, in a little villa in Monaco, at 32,000 people per square inch.
As a recipient of twelve years of Catholic-school education (it didn’t take), I can tell you what I was taught in school. When the Bible talks about Jesus’ brothers, it was actually his cousins.
“But, Sister Mary Thomas, why does it say brothers then?”
“Back in those times, people thought of their first cousins as their brothers.”
It’s funny that sometimes the Bible needs to be taken literally, like, say, about Creationism, and yet when the Bible doesn’t fit with accepted teaching it can be so easily explained away.
(That’s not actually fair. The Catholic Church accepts the fact of evolution. It’s only those fundamentalist bozos in Kansas that are having problems.)