[ctdonath2]

She married Joseph. The sacrament of marriage makes their procreation proper.

You degrade an act which is nigh unto holy in its proper context, demeaning her as little more than God’s whore for doing what God has ordained as righteous behavior between husband and wife.

The Levites ate of sacrificed meat and bread as their source of sustinence. Joseph, proper husband of Mary, was entirely right to partake of the wife which was sanctified as his.

[Salvation]

**Joseph, proper husband of Mary, was entirely right to partake of the wife which was sanctified as his.**

But he didn’t. They had no other children and agreed that living celibately was what the Lord wanted.

You have to look at the whole picture — very unusual.

A child conceived of the Holy Spirit

Joseph wanting to divorce Mary quietly.

Then told in a dream to take her and be a guardian for the Son of God and Son of man.

Then told in a dream to flee to Egypt to protect the child.

Please look at things as God looks at them. (Not YOPIOS)

[Salvation]

FYI, I know of several saints who also had this arrangement with their spouses. They agreed to live celibately.

Our modern world is so hung up on sexuality that we automatically think that way.

Please try thinking out of the box — as God was thinking in providing a guardian for Mary and Jesus.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You and I are in strong agreement with an overall view of marriage, which is indeed sanctified, consecrated by Divine and Natural Law to the durable union of the spouses and the procreation of children. On that you'll find no dissent from me or (I hope) from any Christian.

The instance we're talking about, though, is not "overall," but is specific; and not just "specific" but, more than that, an absolute singularity: never happened in the Universe before, and will never happen again: the case of the one woman hailed with the unheard-of and noble title Kecharitomene ("All-Filled with Grace") by an angel and who consented to the procreative act by which God was made Man.

If such acts even between two humans are holy --- which we agree they are --- then this indescribable procreation between God and a human woman, must be incomparably more sacred.

Humans procreate children who are (even though flawed by having a sin-marred human nature) bearers of the image and likeness of God. But Mary was wed, not by a man coming into her, but by the Holy Spirit coming upon her (in the Archangel's words) --- are you saying this would create a bond inferior in strength, durability, or significance to the bond between mere human procreative partners?

Really?

Don't we see great signs in Scripture that this Divine-human procreative espousal created a lasting bond?

Note how the first Pentecost came precisely when Mary and the Apostles were gathered in the Upper Room. Now they were all, --- accompanying the espoused Mary --- filled with the Holy Spirit!

The Bride Unwed has a bond to the Holy Spirit: one of total consecration. This deserves to be thought upon with care. Note how at the end of time (Rev 22:17) you catch yet another glimpse of this enduring nuptial bond: "The Spirit and the Bride say, Come!"

"And let him who hears, say Come!"