superblue Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Most all have heard of the myth of Christ an Mary M. either being married or having children.... What would the implications actually be to the Church, and the priesthood be if this turned out to be true ? I mean maybe one could argue that priests should be married, but still the Church / Papacy has the final say on that part..... even the suggestion that Christ had a romantic relationship with Mary M. seems to also be really taboo with in the Church.... I can not figure out what the negative aspect would be , and what the negative would be if there was an actual blood line of Christ having a child, To me it seems we would want to see this example.... and I am not promoting the myth/rumor, I am just curious as to thoughts as why it would be a negative and if anyone with credentials has ever written anything substantial on this subject. I am not debating answers, only curious as to what is out there and what yall think. since I dunno where else to ask anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catlick Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) To me this falls into the category 'What if there would be no gravity? What would be the implications be for traffic and especially cars?' Edited April 14, 2015 by Catlick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Jesus got game son... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 To me this falls into the category 'What if there would be no gravity? What would be the implications be for traffic and especially cars?' so you are saying it wouldn't make a difference in a negative way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 so you are saying it wouldn't make a difference in a negative way. I think what Catlick is saying is that if Jesus had had some sort of "intimate" relationship with a woman our Faith would not exist. Think about it: If there were no gravity, how could we drive cars or sit in traffic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 I think what Catlick is saying is that if Jesus had had some sort of "intimate" relationship with a woman our Faith would not exist. Think about it: If there were no gravity, how could we drive cars or sit in traffic? at least you have attempted to give an answer instead of resorting to a slow witted analogy, and just flat out ignoring the rest of what I posed . So far I can not find any good sources explaining why our Faith would not exist, if Christ was married, using the word intimate is a wish washy word in this context an just side stepping the term sexual relationship ( because intimate does not have to a have a sexual undertone/meaning ). Society has tried to " taint " the faith with this image, but to me it seems like a weak attack, to suggest Christ even being attracted to a woman first would be a bad / negative reality ,an second that Christ being in a relationship * dating * or even married would some how bastardize the faith again seems to me be pointing a finger and mocking something that is positive and trying to say it is a negative. An to turn around and eventually say well Christ created the Church which is true, but to then scoff at the idea of Christ ever being married to an actual woman, but to turn around and personify the Church is some how fine, when the Church is not ever one single person or even feminine to begin with. Just seems odd. Why wouldn't the Church want to see Christ married and have that support for marriage in general ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 What about in Heaven? Not saying one way or the other. Although Jesus did create sex and its good. I've wondered this before but figure it's not something to dwell on. I can't say I am losing any sleep over this topic, it was just something I have been wondering why society and the Church looks at as a negative as some giant scandalous issue of Christ one being attracted to Mary Magdalene, let alone any other woman, or two dating, or three marrying and having a child. All of that is looked at ludicrous , but religious sisters are considered " Brides of Christ " so I guess if we want to be really ludicrous one can say oh well look at how many wives He has in heaven, and then someone turns around an goes ohhhh no no no no it is a spiritual metaphor . an then someone jingles there keys and I get distracted an go on about something else. I honestly do not think anyone has a real reason based on anything as to why anything I have asked is a literal negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 I'm only talking in Heaven. I hope there is something similar to sex. And if there is I'm sure Jesus will get to be involved since he created it. now I want to know why I am not a " Church Militant " forget my original post on this altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Say what homeboy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) You're bringing up heretical ideas that Jesus was intimate and perhaps even married while on earth. Furthermore you're insinuating that this isn't a evil idea. That's why you're not Church Militant. Come on kid. Edited April 14, 2015 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Jesus is God. Now keep that in mind when you ask yourself, "what would be the negative implications of Jesus being married and having children?" He came from a Jewish family, not a Greek one. Also the only people who should be considered for Church Militants in this thread are Gabriela and Catlick. Why does Catlick have a Phishy title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) If Christ would have had children they would have been demigods, therefor committing some form of Idolatry, rather than simply crafting an idol He would have procreated idols. If He had married He would have two brides Mary Magdalene and the Church, therefor He'd be guilty of Adultery. Edited April 14, 2015 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Ty KOC I think the only thing that makes sense now is that Christ having children would have resulted in demigods an the procreating idols, that would be problematic . though I would disagree on having two brides that being the Church, considering the church is a group of people and not one person and the personification.... anyhow best answer over all so far KOC. Though I can't go as far as to jumping on a crying spree of how dareth thy thus suggesteth evilth thoughteths of Christ being at least married,, the children part, check that off as answered, I am starting to think perhaps there might be reasonable easy answers as to why Christ couldn't of taken on marriage , and considering Marriage is not evil, the concept is not a bad or evil one either..... But why is the idea of Christ being in love with a woman considered taboo ? Everyone is fine with the non existence of an actual female being the Church aka the bride of Christ, to religious sisters being " married to Christ " to females consecrating their virginity, but to suggest Christ having feelings and or being in any kind of relationship at any level with Mary M. is now on the cusps of insanity ? Edited April 14, 2015 by superblue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Marriage is only a pale shadow of the relationship between Christ and the Church; it's the latter, fuller relationship that is manifested in a particularly striking way in the celibate consecrated (and in its highest form, contemplative) life; it's not meant as some kind of analogy of human marriage. Marriage is, furthermore, geared towards procreation in the first instance (later 'developments' in the 'understanding' of marriage not withstanding). There's no particular need for the Christ to procreate; indeed to have done so would have lessened that eternal, full and perfect relationship he has with the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now