Posted on 09/01/2008 12:03:15 PM PDT by xzins
“....a Jesuit was present at my ordination. But he was a renegade.”
I rest my case. IMHO, all Jesuits are renegades (ask any reigning Pope). And I’m old enough to remember high school retreats featuring Jesuits who styled themselves as “a fighting priest who isn’t afraid to talk to urban young people”. The kumbaya was so thick you could cut it with a knife, er, switchblade.
Mary’s holy exalted place as Virgin Mother in Heaven is really not going to be affected by what some tambourine-banging post-Vatican II leftovers happen to think about her. Problem is, too many of them are now archbishops.
Are you still wearing turtlenecks instead of a Roman collar?
;^)
I’m not Roman....
(But, it hadn’t come up until now.)
That didn’t answer my question.
Anyway, we’re firing back and forth so rapidly, it’s obvious we both need to get off the internet and get a life. I’m outta here. Go, the Mass is ended.
Ciao, baby
ITA
Yet ever so often the reader runs into a Bible story that is left wanting for more, there is a obvious gap...
....leaving some to want to even question that which seems like a moral contradiction.
IMHO there is more to this Bible story!
The Untouchables, Sean Connery
:>)
Yes I agree, but then why would Joseph seek to divorce her?
The bigger question is that God would not give the appearance of sin by having Mary impregnated, even by His spirit.
The betrothal period allowed for conjugal visits, otherwise Mary would have caused a situation that would have required her to be stoned to death.
A divorce was required in the betrothal period. They were not “unwed” in the eyes of the Lord, lest Jesus was made a bastard by the Holy Spirit!
Because betrothal was a real committment, but it still wasn’t quite married. If as some said, Joseph got “conjugal visits” during their betrothal, then that would be a direct attack on Mary’s virginity, wouldn’t it be?
Mary was not ‘just another unwed pregnant teen’ as some have referred to her as. Rather in the marriage arrangement under Jewish custom she was already legally the wife of Joseph which is why he thought of a quiet divorce. Our Lord did not come into this world under a cloud of scandal for an unmarried pregnant woman could even be subject to stoning.
So betrothed to you equals the same as married. Is that right?
No, betrothed in Christ's time among the Jewish community was nearly the same as married, and required a divorce to dissolve. Magdalen is correct.
If betrothed = marriage, then Joseph and Mary could have consummated the marriage.
You don’t believe that do you?
COULD have? Yes. Did they? No.
Judith Ann, you are correct. They did not come together, consummating the marriage.
Do you think it would be easier to defend Mary’s virginity (a) IF it were the custom NOT to have sex before the wedding, or (b) IF it were the custom that it was OK to have sex before the wedding?
On the one hand, no one could easily say that Joseph was the father of Jesus. In the other case, it would be natural to think that Joseph was the father.
I would pick (a).
Sorry, the speculation does not interest me.
Betrothal is not equal to marriage.
It was binding as marriage (disolved by divorce) but did not give conjugal rights.
I agree.
Betrothal was far more binding than a modern engagement, but it was time prior to the wedding and the consummation.
Significantly, after the conception, Mary went away on a trip to her cousin house. Elizabeth calls her, “the mother of my Lord.” As near as I can tell, Joseph does not, at the time of the visit to Elizabeth, know of the pregnancy.
He finds out about it on Mary’s return, and it is at that point that he ponders sending Mary away. He knows that he has not had sexual relations with her.
Why not, if he’s allowed to?
You asked “why not — why did Joseph refrain from having sexual relations with Mary,..”
Who knows? The point of the way it played out was that Joseph knew HE DID NOT have relations with Mary.
So he wanted to divorce her until God set him straight.
Hebrews were allowed conjugal visits during the betrothal period.
Again, God would not subject Mary to scandal by impregnating her during this period of time. He would not reign down a perception of sin upon her!
As to why Joseph did NOT have sex with her? Who knows? It doesn’t detract from the Virgin birth - the fact that he knew he didn’t have relations with her made the Virgin Birth more clear...
The larger question is why her community did not try to stone her for being pregnant. They didn’t because conjugal visits were allowed.
Find a scripture that says that.
Here is a scripture that says sex is not permitted during betrothal.
Paul said (2 Cor. 11:2) “For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
The Church is the Bride of Christ, but the Wedding Supper is clearly spelled out in both parables and in eschatological scripture.
The Church and Christ are fully committed during the betrothal period, but the consummation has not yet taken place.
Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data. ...The Incarnation
This marriage, true and complete, was, in the intention of the spouses, to be virgin marriage (cf. St. Augustine, "De cons. Evang.", II, i in P.L. XXXIV, 1071-72; "Cont. Julian.", V, xii, 45 in P.L.. XLIV, 810; St. Thomas, III:28; III:29:2). But soon was the faith of Joseph in his spouse to be sorely tried: she was with child. However painful the discovery must have been for him, unaware as he was of the mystery of the Incarnation, his delicate feelings forbade him to defame his affianced, and he resolved "to put her away privately; but while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. . . And Joseph, rising from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife" (Matthew 1:19, 20, 24).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.