CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - Bible Study
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 8th September 2006, 12:22 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan View Post
Then, why did St. Joseph, being a compassionate [righteous] man think to "put her away privilly" Surely, the insight granted to a Saint is not to be dismissed in favor of just what I always thought in an unreflective manner; however--maybe St. Joseph experienced a complex gamut of emotions in such astonishing circumstances?
I like your explanation that Joseph experienced many emotions about this. It is hard for us as Christians to know what he experienced as a devout Jew faced with the mother of the Messiah as a betrothed.

But the usual explanations that I have too often heard about Joseph treat him as if he were not a Saint and as if he had no insight. I believe that Saint Joseph was a virgin (not a widower) and that he had some insight that Mary was a true virgin, more virginal than himself. It takes one to know one, as they say. So he would have dismissed her privately, since she was innocent and he was unworthy.

By the way, Mary did not know that she would be the mother of God prior to the Annunciation. Previously she had hoped, at most, to be the humble handmaid of the mother of the Messiah. She also felt herself unworthy.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 8th September 2006, 01:54 PM
Nathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default confused

THings seem to get so muddled when it comes to the lives of Mary and Joseph, and it seems as if East and West has divergent traditions here.

The west teaches that Joseph was a young virgin, the east, that he was an aged octegenarian widower with 7 children (I believe the latter, based upon an extended exegetical study that I did two years ago as well as my trust in Tradition).

I suppose that this is due to the high veneration that the west has for Joseph: in churches I see Joseph where, architecturally, John the Baptist would be in Eastern churches, who the East venerates as sinless and second only to the Virgin Mary among all mortals. Also, I notice that in later Western Litanies Joseph also takes John's place after MAry's name.

Last night at Vespers and the Litany of Our Lady, my priest read from the Prologue of Ochrid about the conception of the Theotokos... again, that Joachim and Anne were aged and barren, and that the Theotokos was their only child. This is the Eastern consensus since the 2nd century and goes hand-in-hand in the East with her ever-virginity. This contradicts Brigitte of Sweden.

What accounts for this divergence? The West going astray? The early Church getting it wrong and later having to be corrected (and Latinized???)? Or all of these reconstructions being mere theologoumena (pious opinion)?

I do not believe that the solution, either, is to merely elucidate the "CAtholic" position and ignore the East, for this is not truly catholic, nor does it acknowledge, as the Catholic Church claims, the full Apostolic patrimony of the Eastern Catholics in the West, who "believe everything the Orthodox (East) teaches," as the Antiochian Catholic Patriarch says in the Balamaand statement...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 8th September 2006, 02:01 PM
Nathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Happy Feast

By the way,

Happy Feast Day, everyone!

May God bless everyone as we celebrate the solemn feast of the Holy Nativity of the Blameless, All Pure, Immaculate, and All-Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary!

Let me share a few hymns we sing today in the East:

Apolytikion (Fourth Tone)

Your birth, O Theotokos, brought joy to the whole world, for from you dawned the sun of righteousness, Christ our God. Freeing us from the curse, He gave us His blessings. Abolishing death, He granted us eternal life.

Kontakion (Fourth Tone)

In your holy birth, Immaculate One, Joachim and Anna were rid of the shame of childlessness; Adam and Eve of the corruption of death. And so your people, free of the guilt of their sins, celebrate crying: "The barren one gives birth to the Theotokos, who nourishes our life."

My wife and I will probably be chanting these at the Melkite parish tonight since our western-rite Orthodox parish had Lady Vespers last night in lieu of mass.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 8th September 2006, 02:29 PM
Joan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I will wait eagerly to hear further on this topic; thank you, Nathan, for interesting questions
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 8th September 2006, 06:28 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,564
Default

Blessed A.C. Emmerich taught the Joseph was an older man, a virgin not married before, when Mary was betrothed to him. He was in his mid 40's and she was about 14 or 15.

St. Epiphanius considered whether or not Joseph was a widower, and he mentions the two opinions: virgin or widower.

I think that, apart from all these traditions, since Mary was a perfect virgin, it would not have been fitting, even in a virginal marriage, for her to marry a non-virgin.

I did not know that the East considered John the Baptist to be without personal sin. See my article:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/future/John-Baptist.htm

The First Fruits will also be like John, having original sin, but no personal sin.

I am certain that Mary was not an only child, and that Joachim and Anna were not virgins. John 19:25 refers to Mary's older sister. Bl. Emmerich gives many details about this older sister.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 15th June 2007, 02:09 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default Back to Matthew

Objections to Continued Virginity

There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. The first considers the "brothers" of Jesus from the Gospels.

Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers (adelphoi) appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. (Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers (adelphoi) are standing outside, asking to speak with you.") But he said in reply to the one who told him, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers (adelphoi)?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers (adelphoi). For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother (adelphos), and sister (adelpha), and mother."
Mk 6:3
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother (adelphos) of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters (adelphai) here with us?

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other Semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); ( mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:; and (10) believers (Mt 23:. (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

A second objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word, heos, in Matthew's gospel.

Mt 1:25
He (Joseph) had no relations with her until (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
I take some of verses in scripture using the word until:
Gen. {8:6} And when forty days had passed, Noah, opening the window that he had made in the ark, sent forth a raven,
{8:7} which went forth and did not return, until the waters were dried up across the earth. This does not mean, the raven returns when waters dried up.

Mt {22:44} ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool?’ This one also does'nt mean,that the Lord who sits at the right hand would no longer be a Lord after the enemies been defeated.

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word, prototokos, translated "first-born" in Luke's gospel.

Lk 2:7
(Mary) gave birth to her firstborn son (prototokos). She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger ...

The Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary. The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 15th June 2007, 05:30 AM
ScarFace
 
Posts: n/a
Default

{1:16} And Jacob conceived Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Any thoughts behind why God choose to take the human name Christ?

{1:18} Now the procreation of the Christ occurred in this way. After his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they lived together, she was found to have conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit.


Incarnation, amazing. I still have a hard time grasping the idea that God submitted to a lower form, humans, than Himself (in the human nature vs divine nature). Since God is Eternity, why do think He allows us to live another second since He already knows our final destination is Heaven or Hell?


ScarFace
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 15th June 2007, 12:22 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,564
Default

Any thoughts behind why God choose to take the human name Christ?

Christ is his title, not his name. It means the Anointed One, and it refers to the Messiah.

Since God is Eternity, why do think He allows us to live another second since He already knows our final destination is Heaven or Hell?

Our final destination is a result of how we live our whole lives, to the very last moment. So God cannot stop us now, knowing that we will later fall away, or repent. He has to allow us to make the choices which result in that final destination.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 17th June 2007, 04:30 AM
garabandalg garabandalg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,657
Default I think that God respects us more than we respect Him

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Any thoughts behind why God choose to take the human name Christ?

Christ is his title, not his name. It means the Anointed One, and it refers to the Messiah.

Since God is Eternity, why do think He allows us to live another second since He already knows our final destination is Heaven or Hell?

Our final destination is a result of how we live our whole lives, to the very last moment. So God cannot stop us now, knowing that we will later fall away, or repent. He has to allow us to make the choices which result in that final destination.

I think that, ironically, God Almighty respects us more than we respect Him. Now God does not respect us because He is subordinate to us, of course, as quite the opposite is true. He is all powerful, all knowing and ultimate eternity. No, God respects us because, as His creations, we come from Him, and therefore we are worthy of some respect as coming from His creative power. Also, God is love, and the greatest love there is, and true love cannot exist without some form of respect being involved. The great irony is that, although God respects us as His handiwork, we fail to respond to Him with the proportionate love which He is eternally due, either because we are so weak and defective as to be incapable of ever fully appreciating and loving The Almighty as He is due or because we so weak and defective as to perpetually fail to reach such a state of appreciation, obedience, loyalty, respect and love to which God will always be due. Therefore, God allows us to merely fulfill the destiny He already knows is ours because in that way He once again models for us the height and depth of His love for us. I think of it this way. How much greater and more impressive is the love offered by an all powerful king to a lowly slave than that which said slave could ever offer the king? the slave may be kind out of fear or out of a glimmer of hope as to be favored and helped by the great king, but what does the king have to gain by associating himself with any slave? No, only a deep love and respect for even that slave is what will motivate and inspire the king, and will therefore, ideally, would inspire the slave to follow in the footsteps of the father and the father's example.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18th December 2007, 09:53 PM
Ken
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
I am certain that Mary was not an only child, and that Joachim and Anna were not virgins. John 19:25 refers to Mary's older sister. Bl. Emmerich gives many details about this older sister.

John 19:25 [ESV] but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

{19:25} And standing beside the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.


Ron,

I've seen this very verse used as an argument against the strict literalism of the terms "brother" and "sister" in Scripture. The argument being is that it's very unlikely that within a single family two daughters would be named Mary. More likely is that Mary of Cleophas is the Blessed Mother's sister-in-law, in which case Clopas is her brother, or perhaps the word translated "sister" designates an even broaded relationship such as cousin or kinsman.

Do you think the Blessed Mother really had an older sister with the same name?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.