Mary's Virginity

[P3chrmd]

Ok guys need your help!

I just argued that Mary was the spouse of The Holy Spirit...and the poster said that it is a false statement because she was married to Joseph...how do I argue that???

[goldenchild17]

I dunno. First of all though, it never really says in Scripture that they married, only that they were betrothed. Although it is most likely that they did marry, it doesn't say for sure. But I'm not sure what to say.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jul 29 2004, 04:27 PM'] Ok guys need your help!

I just argued that Mary was the spouse of The Holy Spirit...and the poster said that it is a false statement because she was married to Joseph...how do I argue that??? [/quote]
here are some valuable resources:

Easton's Bible Dictionary: [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonsBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T573"][b]betroth[/b][/url][list]
[*]to promise "by one's truth." Men and women were betrothed when they were engaged to be married. This usually took place a year or more before marriage. From the time of betrothal the woman was regarded as the lawful wife of the man to whom she was betrothed (Deuteronomy 28:30; Judges 14:2,8; Matthew 1:18-21). The term is figuratively employed of the spiritual connection between God and his people (Hosea 2:19,20).
[*][b]Hosea 2:19-20[/b]
[b]19 [/b]And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy.
[b]20 [/b]I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD.
[/list]King James Dictionary: [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/KingJamesDictionary/kjv.cgi?number=T85"][b]betrothed[/b][/url][list]
[*]To be engaged.

And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will BETROTH thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. (Hosea 2:18-19)
[/list]Smith's Bible Dictionary: [url="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/SmithsBibleDictionary/smt.cgi?number=T2847"][b]Marriage[/b][/url][list]
[*][i]Its origin and history .[/i] --The institution of marriage dates from the time of man’s original creation. (Genesis 2:18-25) From (Genesis 2:24) we may evolve the following principles: (1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man. (2) The indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on; the strongest grounds, Comp. (Matthew 19:9) (3) Monogamy, as the original law of marriage (4) The social equality of man and wife. (5) The subordination of the wife to the husband. (1 Corinthians 11:8,9; 1 Timothy 2:13) (6) The respective duties of man and wife. In the patriarchal age polygamy prevailed, (Genesis 16:4; 25:1,8; 28:9; 29:23,26; 1 Chronicles 7:14) but to a great extent divested of the degradation which in modern times attaches to that practice. Divorce also prevailed in the patriarchal age, though but one instance of it is recorded. (Genesis 21:14) The Mosaic law discouraged polygamy, restricted divorce, and aimed to enforce purity of life. It was the best civil law possible at the time, and sought to bring the people up to the pure standard of the moral law. In the Post-Babylonian period monogamy appears to have become more prevalent than at any previous time. The practice of polygamy nevertheless still existed; Herod the Great had no less than nine wives at one time. The abuse of divorce continued unabated. Our Lord and his apostles re-established the integrity and sanctity of the marriage bond by the following measures: (a) By the confirmation of the original charter of marriage as the basis on which all regulations were to be framed. (Matthew 19:4,5) (b) By the restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds. (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:10,11) © By the enforcement of moral purity generally (Hebrews 13:4) etc., and especial formal condemnation of fornication. (Acts 15:20)
[/list][list]
[*][i]The conditions of legal marriage .[/i] --In the Hebrew commonwealth marriage was prohibited (a) between an Israelite and a non-Israelite. There were three grades of prohibition: total in regard to the Canaanites on either side; total on the side of the males in regard to the Ammonites and Moabites; and temporary on the side of the males in regard to the Edomites and Egyptians, marriages with females in the two latter instances being regarded as legal. The progeny of illegal marriages between Israelites and non-Israelites was described as "bastard." ( 23:2) (b) between an Israelite and one of his own community. The regulations relative to marriage between Israelites and Israelites were based on considerations of relationship. The most important passage relating to these is contained in (Leviticus 18:6-18) wherein we have in the first place a general prohibition against marriage between a man and the "flesh of his flesh," and in the second place special prohibitions against marriage with a mother, stepmother, sister or half-sister, whether "born at home or abroad," granddaughter, aunt, whether by consanguinity on either side or by marriage on the father’s side, daughter in-law, brother’s wife, stepdaughter, wife’s mother, stepgranddaughter, or wife’s sister during the lifetime of the wife. An exception is subsequently made, ( 26:5-9) in favor of marriage with a brother’s wife in the event of his having died childless. The law which regulates this has been named the "levirate," from the Latin levir , "brother-in-law."
[/list][list]
[*][i]The modes by which marriage was effected .[/i] --The choice of the bride devolved not on the bridegroom himself, but on his relations or on a friend deputed by the bridegroom for this purpose. The consent of the maiden was sometimes asked (Genesis 24:58) but this appears to have been subordinate to the previous consent of the father and the adult brothers. (Genesis 24:51; 34:11) Occasionally the whole business of selecting the wife was left in the hands of a friend. The selection of the bride was followed by the espousal, which was a formal proceeding undertaken by a friend or legal representative on the part of the bridegroom and by the parents on the part of the bride; it was confirmed by oaths, and accompanied with presents to the bride. The act of betrothal was celebrated by a feast, and among the more modern Jews it is the custom in some parts for the bride. groom to place a ring on the bride’s finger. The ring was regarded among the Hebrews as a token of fidelity (Genesis 41:42) and of adoption into a family. (Luke 15:25) Between the betrothal sad the marriage so interval elapsed, varying from a few days in the patriarchal age, (Genesis 24:55) to a full year for virgins and a month for widows in later times. During this period the bride-elect lived with her friends, and all communication between herself and her future husband was carried on through the medium of a friend deputed for the purpose, termed the "friend of the bridegroom." (John 3:29) She was now virtually regarded as the wife of her future husband; hence faithlessness on her part was punishable with death, ( 22:23,24) the husband having, however, the option of "putting her away." ( 24:1; Matthew 1:19) The essence of the marriage ceremony consisted in the removal of the bride from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom or his father. The bridegroom prepared himself for the occasion by putting on a festive dress, and especially by placing on his head a handsome nuptial turban. (Psalms 45:8; Solomon 4:10,11) The bride was veiled. Her robes were white, (Revelation 19:8) and sometimes embroidered with gold thread, (Psalms 45:13,14) and covered with perfumes! (Psalms 45:8) she was further decked out with jewels. (Isaiah 49:18; 61:10; Revelation 21:2) When the fixed hour arrived, which was, generally late in the evening, the bridegroom set forth from his house, attended by his groomsmen (Authorized Version "companions," (Judges 14:11) "children of the bride-chamber," (Matthew 9:15) preceded by a band of musicians or singers, (Genesis 31:27; Jeremiah 7:34; 16:9) and accompanied by persons hearing flambeaux, (Jeremiah 25:10) 2 Esdr. 10:2; (Matthew 25:7; Revelation 18:23) and took the bride with the friends to his own house. At the house a feast was prepared, to which all the friends and neighbors were invited, (Genesis 29:22; Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:8; John 2:2) and the festivities were protracted for seven or even fourteen days. (Judges 14:12; Job 8:19) The guests were provided by the host with fitting robes, (Matthew 22:11) and the feast was enlivened with riddles, (Judges 14:12) and other amusements. The last act in the ceremonial was the conducting of the bride to the bridal chamber, (Judges 15:1; Joel 2:16) where a canopy was prepared. (Psalms 19:5; Joel 2:16) The bride was still completely veiled, so that the deception practiced on Jacob, (Genesis 29:23) was not difficult. A newly married man was exempt from military service, or from any public business which might draw him away from his home, for the space of a year, ( 24:5) a similar privilege was granted to him who was ’betrothed. ( 20:7)
[/list][list]
[*][i]The social and domestic conditions of married life . [/i]--The wife must have exercised an important influence in her own home. She appears to have taken her part in family affairs, and even to have enjoyed a considerable amount of independence. (Judges 4:18; 1 Samuel 25:14; 2 Kings 4:8) etc. In the New Testament the mutual relations of husband and wife are a subject of frequent exhortation. (Ephesians 5:22,33; Colossians 3:18,19; Titus 2:4,5; 1 Peter 3:1-7) The duties of the wife in the Hebrew household were multifarious; in addition to the general superintendence of the domestic arrangements, such as cooking, from which even women of rank were not exempt. (Genesis 18:8; 2 Samuel 13:5) and the distribution of food at meal times, (Proverbs 31:13) the manufacture of the clothing and of the various fabrics required in her home devolved upon her, (Proverbs 31:13,21,22) and if she were a model of activity and skill, she produced a surplus of fine linen shirts and girdles, which she sold and so, like a well-freighted merchant ship, brought in wealth to her husband from afar. (Proverbs 31:14,24) The legal rights of the wife are noticed in (Exodus 21:10) under the three heads of food, raiment, and duty of marriage or conjugal right.
[/list][list]
[*]The allegorical and typical allusions to marriage have exclusive reference to one object, viz., to exhibit the spiritual relationship between God and his people. In the Old Testament (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:14; Hosea 2:19) In the New Testament the image of the bridegroom is transferred from Jehovah to Christ, (Matthew 9:15; John 3:29) and that of the bride to the Church, (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7; 21:2,9)
[/list]New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02537c.htm"][b]betrothal[/b][/url][list]
[*](Lat. sponsalia).

The giving of one's troth — that is, one's true faith or promise. Betrothal, in the Catholic Church, is a deliberate and free, mutual, true promise, externally expressed, of future marriage between determinate and fit persons. It is a promise, compact, or agreement — not merely an intention; and, like all contracts, it must be entered into with deliberation proportionate to the obligation which it begets; it must be free from force, substantial error, and grave fear. The promise given must be mutual; a promise on the part of one only, with acceptance by the other, does not constitute a betrothal. The consent, of course, as in all contracts, must be true, or sincere, not feigned; it must be given with the intention of binding oneself, and this intention must be expressed verbally, by writing, or by action, in person or by proxy. Lastly, this contract, like matrimony, can exist only between two definite persons whose capacity is recognized by the Church; that is, between whom there is no matrimonial impediment, either as regards the licitness or validity of the contract. The betrothal is a promise of future marriage, and hence it differs from the marriage contract itself, which deals with that state as in the present.

FORMALITIES

Formal betrothal is not customary in the United States, or in English-speaking countries generally, as it is among certain nations, where the ceremony is sometimes solemn (before ecclesiastical witnesses) and sometimes private (made at home before the family or friends as witnesses). Among English-speaking peoples the betrothal, if it occurs, is generally without the presence of a third party. In Spain (S. C. C., 31 January, 1880; 11 April, 1891) and in Latin America (Acta et Decreta Conc. Pl. Amer. Lat., p. 259, in note 1) a betrothal compact is considered invalid by the Church unless written documents pass between the contracting parties. This practice obtains in other countries also, but its observance is not necessary to validate the agreement.

EFFECTS

A valid betrothal begets chiefly two effects. There arises first an obligation in justice, binding the contracting parties to keep their agreement; viz. to marry at the time specified; or, when the date of marriage is not agreed upon, whenever the second party to the compact reasonably demands the fulfillment of the marriage-promise. Marriage, consequently, with a third party is forbidden, though not invalid. There arises, secondly, owing to an ecclesiastical law, a diriment impediment, known as "public decency", extending to relatives in the first degree of the parties betrothed. Hence, a marriage contracted between the male party to a betrothal and the mother, sister, or daughter of the other party; and, vice versa, between the woman and the father, brother, or son of the man, would be null and void. This impediment continues to exist in all its force, even after the betrothal has been legitimately dissolved. The first of these effects, an obligation of justice, may arise, it will be seen, from a betrothal compact which has not all the essentials of the definition given above; not so, however, of the second effect. It is sometimes stated that a betrothal does not bind in English-speaking countries. This is inexact, to say the least. There is no exception at any time, or in any country, to the binding force arising from a valid betrothal, even though it be not public (S. C. S. Off., 11 Aug., 1852), or to the impediment begotten thereby. Engagements very frequently, though not always, are rather proposals of matrimony than promises as explained above, and in them an essential element of the betrothal is wanting (Sabetti, Theol. Mor., n. 838, qu. 30; Kenrick, Theol. Mor., nos. 23, 37).

DISSOLUTION

A betrothal may be dissolved: (1) By the mutual and free consent of the contracting parties. (2) By a diriment impediment, which subsequently arises between said parties. In this case the innocent party is released form his or her obligation, but not the one through whose fault the impediment arose. The latter may be held to the contract, if the impediment be such that the Church can dispense from it. (3) By a valid marriage entered into with a third person. (4) By protracted delay on the part of either of the contracting parties in fulfilling the agreement to marry, in which case the innocent party is released from obligation. (5) By one of the contracting parties choosing a higher state of perfection, as for example by solemn profession in a religious order, by the reception of major orders, etc. (6) By any notable change in body or soul or worldly state of one of the parties — any grave circumstance which if it had happened or been known before the betrothal would have prevented it. To these may be added the impossibility of contracting matrimony, and a dispensation granted by the pope for just causes.

PROCEDURES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE

In case of refusal to complete the contract by marriage an action before the diocesan court is permissible. Bishops, however, are counseled not ordinarily to enforce marriage in such cases, as generally it would prove unhappy. In English-speaking countries these matters are, as a rule, taken into the civil courts, where the only remedy is a breach-of-promise suit, the penalty being a fine. In the United States, before the civil law, betrothal has only the moral force of a mutual promise. Betrothal in England was once a legal bar to matrimony with another; at present the only legal remedy for the violation of the betrothal is an action for breach of promise.

HISTORY

Jewish and Roman laws and customs must have influenced the early practice of the Church anent betrothal. The Jewish laws of marriage, and consequently of betrothal, were based in a great measure on the supposition that it was a purchase. In the law of Moses there are certain provisions respecting the state of the virgin who is betrothed, but nothing particularly referring to the act of betrothal. Selden's "Uxor Hebraica" gives the schedule of later Hebrew contracts of betrothal. Where the contract was in writing, it was written out by the man before witnesses and delivered to the woman, who must know its import. Rome, on the other hand, at the beginning of the Christian Era, had ceased to consider marriage as a wife-purchase. Marriage, and still more betrothal, was a purely civil compact, verbally concluded. Under later Roman law, which constituted a basis for our ecclesiastical legislation, betrothal was looked upon simply as a contract of future marriage, stronger indeed than the engagement, since to enter into a second betrothal compact was held to be as infamous as bigamy itself. No legal forms were prescribed for the early Roman betrothal, but the compact was generally accompanied by the man's sending to the woman the iron betrothal ring (annulus pronubus). As the Empire grew in importance, so did the betrothal contract, while at the same time its obligations were more frequently disregarded. Hence the practice of giving earnest-money, or pledges of fidelity (arrhoe), came into prominence; another step led to gifts being bestowed by the parties, one upon the other. The kiss, the joining of hands, and the attestation of witnesses were other elements introduced. Even in England formal engagements of this kind were common down to the time of the Reformation. As barbarian influence, however, began to affect the Empire, the betrothal took on more the semblance of wife-purchase.

The Church, at the beginning of the third century at the latest, recognized betrothal as a perfectly valid and lawful contract. In the fourth century, in Africa at least, according to the testimony of St. Augustine (Sermo viii, 18; Sermo xxxvii, 7; Sermo cccxxxii, 4, etc.), espousals were contracted in writing, the instrument (tabulae), signed by the bishop, being publicly read. At the same time the dowry, if any, was given, or nuptial gifts were exchanged. Pope Benedict I (573-577), writing to the Patriarch of Gran, declares that it is connubial intercourse that makes two one, that mere betrothal would not prevent a man from entering into wedlock with the sister of his betrothed. The question of relationship, then, arising from the betrothal contract was mooted even at that early period. Gregory the Great (590-603) allowed a woman who was betrothed to dissolve her engagement in order to enter a convent (Bk. VI, Ep. xx).

At the end of the ninth century betrothal had become a very frequent subject of Church legislation. From a reply of Pope Nicholas to the Bulgarians in 860 (Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, c. iii) it is apparent that the preliminaries leading up to a marriage in the Church were: (1) The betrothal or espousal; the expression of consent by the contracting parties, and the consent also of their parents, or guardians, to the projected marriage. (2) The subarrhatio, or delivery of the ring by the man to the woman by way of an earnest, or pledge. (3) The documentary transfer, by the man to the woman, of the dowry, in the presence of witnesses. The marriage was to follow immediately, or after an interval more or less protracted. These rites are still recognized in modern uses. The ceremony of betrothal is found in a measure in the present nuptial service. There is a declaration of consent, which, since the marriage follows immediately after, is de praesenti. The placing of the ring on the finger of the bride by the bridegroom constitutes the subarrhatio, while in many places transferring of the dowry is represented by a medal or coin — a relic of Salic law and of wife-purchase. (See Martene, De Antiq. Ecc. Ritibus, I, ix, a. 3, n. 4, speaking of a ritual of the Church of Reims.)
[/list]Summa Theologica: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/402902.htm"][b]Whether There Was a True Marriage Between Mary and Joseph[/b][/url][list]
[*][b]Objection 1.[/b] It would seem that there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius that Joseph "was Mary's guardian rather than her husband." But if this was a true marriage, Joseph was truly her husband. Therefore there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph.

[b]Objection 2. [/b]Further, on Mt. 1:16: "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary," Jerome says: "When thou readest 'husband' suspect not a marriage; but remember that Scripture is wont to speak of those who are betrothed as husband and wife." But a true marriage is not effected by the betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore, there was no true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph.

[b]Objection 3.[/b] Further, it is written (Mt. 1:19): "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to take her away [Douay: 'publicly to expose her', i.e. to take her to his home in order to cohabit with her, was minded to put her away privately, i.e. to postpone the wedding," as Remigius [Cf. Catena Aurea in Matth.] expounds. Therefore, it seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized, there was no true marriage: especially since, after the marriage contract, no one can lawfully put his wife away.

[b]On the contrary[/b], Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his union with Mary" (since he said that Joseph was Mary's husband) "on the ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not conceived of him, but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent, their union is still and is rightly called marriage, even without intercourse of the sexes."

[b]I answer that[/b], Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mt. 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."

But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none."

[b]Reply to Objection 1. [/b]Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference to marriage consummated.

[b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b] By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse.

[b]Reply to Objection 3. [/b]As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth. [Opus Imperfectum among the supposititious works ascribed to St. Chrysostom) the Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph that she dwelt in his home: "for just as she who conceives in her husband's house is understood to have conceived of him, so she who conceives elsewhere is suspect." Consequently sufficient precaution would not have been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if she had not the entry of her husband's house. Wherefore the words, "not willing to take her away" are better rendered as meaning, "not willing publicly to expose her," than understood of taking her to his house. Hence the evangelist adds that "he was minded to put her away privately." But although she had the entry of Joseph's house by reason of her first promise of espousals, yet the time had not yet come for the solemnizing of the wedding; for which reason they had not yet consummated the marriage. Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.): "The evangelist does not say, 'before she was taken to the house of her husband,' because she was already in the house. For it was the custom among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter frequently the houses of them to whom they were betrothed." Therefore the angel also said to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"; that is: "Fear not to solemnize your marriage with her." Others, however, say that she was not yet admitted to his house, but only betrothed to him. But the first is more in keeping with the Gospel narrative.
[/list]Summa Theologica: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/504301.htm"][b]Whether a Betrothal Is a Promise of Future Marriage[/b][/url][list]
[*][b]Objection 1.[/b] It would seem that a betrothal is not rightly defined "a promise of future marriage," as expressed in the words of Pope Nicholas I (Resp. ad Consul. Bulgar., iii). For as Isidore says (Etym. iv), "a man is betrothed not by a mere promise, but by giving his troth [spondet] and providing sureties [sponsores]". Now a person is said to be betrothed by reason of his betrothal. Therefore it is wrongly described as a promise.

[b]Objection 2.[/b] Further, whoever promises a thing must be compelled to fulfill his promise. But those who have contracted a betrothal are not compelled by the Church to fulfill the marriage. Therefore a betrothal is not a promise.

[b]Objection 3.[/b] Further, sometimes a betrothal does not consist of a mere promise, but an oath is added, as also certain pledges. Therefore seemingly it should not be defined as a mere promise.

[b]Objection 4.[/b] Further, marriage should be free and absolute. But a betrothal is sometimes expressed under a condition even of money to be received. Therefore it is not fittingly described as a promise of marriage.

[b]Objection 5.[/b] Further, promising about the future is blamed in James 4:13, seqq. But there should be nothing blameworthy about the sacraments. Therefore one ought not to make a promise of future marriage.

[b]Objection 6. [/b]Further, no man is called a spouse except on account of his espousals. But a man is said to be a spouse on account of actual marriage, according to the text (Sent. iv, D, 27). Therefore espousals are not always a promise of future marriage.

[b]I answer that[/b], Consent to conjugal union if expressed in words of the future does not make a marriage, but a promise of marriage; and this promise is called "a betrothal from plighting one's troth," as Isidore says (Etym. iv). For before the use of writing-tablets, they used to give pledges of marriage, by which they plighted their mutual consent under the marriage code, and they provided guarantors. This promise is made in two ways, namely absolutely, or conditionally. Absolutely, in four ways: firstly, a mere promise, by saying: "I will take thee for my wife," and conversely; secondly, by giving betrothal pledges, such as money and the like; thirdly, by giving an engagement ring; fourthly, by the addition of an oath. If, however, this promise be made conditionally, we must draw a distinction; for it is either an honorable condition, for instance if we say: "I will take thee, if thy parents consent," and then the promise holds if the condition is fulfilled, and does not hold if the condition is not fulfilled; or else the condition is dishonorable, and this in two ways: for either it is contrary to the marriage blessings, as if we were to say: "I will take thee if thou promise means of sterility," and then no betrothal is contracted; or else it is not contrary to the marriage blessings, as were one to say: "I will take thee if thou consent to my thefts," and then the promise holds, but the condition should be removed.

[b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] The betrothal itself and giving of sureties are a ratification of the promise, wherefore it is denominated from these as from that which is more perfect.

[b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b] By this promise one party is bound to the other in respect of contracting marriage; and he who fulfills not his promise sins mortally, unless a lawful impediment arise; and the Church uses compulsion in the sense that she enjoins a penance for the sin. But he is not compelled by sentence of the court, because compulsory marriages are wont to have evil results; unless the parties be bound by oath, for then he ought to be compelled, in the opinion of some, although others think differently on account of the reason given above, especially if there be fear of one taking the other's life.

[b]Reply to Objection 3. [/b]Such things are added only in confirmation of the promise, and consequently they are not distinct from it.

[b]Reply to Objection 4.[/b] The condition that is appended does not destroy the liberty of marriage; for if it be unlawful, it should be renounced; and if it be lawful, it is either about things that are good simply, as were one to say, "I will take thee, if thy parents consent," and such a condition does not destroy the liberty of the betrothal, but gives it an increase of rectitude. or else it is about things that are useful, as were one to say: "I will marry thee if thou pay me a hundred pounds," and then this condition is appended, not as asking a price for the consent of marriage, but as referring to the promise of a dowry; so that the marriage does not lose its liberty. Sometimes, however, the condition appended is the payment of a sum of money by way of penalty, and then, since marriage should be free, such a condition does not hold, nor can such a penalty be exacted from a person who is unwilling to fulfill the promise of marriage.

[b]Reply to Objection 5.[/b] James does not intend to forbid altogether the making of promises about the future, but the making of promises as though one were certain of one's life; hence he teaches that we ought to add the condition. "If the Lord will," which, though it be not expressed in words, ought nevertheless to be impressed on the heart.

[b]Reply to Objection 6.[/b] In marriage we may consider both the marriage union and the marriage act; and on account of his promise of the first as future a man is called a "spouse" from his having contracted his espousals by words expressive of the future; but from the promise of the second a man is called a "spouse," even when the marriage has been contracted by words expressive of the present, because by this very fact he promises [spondet] the marriage act. However, properly speaking, espousals are so called from the promise [sponsione] in the first sense, because espousals are a kind of sacramental annexed to matrimony, as exorcism to baptism.
[/list]i will comment on these in another post.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited July 30, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]I perceive there is an improper view of sex here. Sex, inside marriage, is God ordained, is pure, and is undefiled. Any woman, Mary, or any other, who has sex with her husband remains “pure”, “spotless”, and “undefiled”. [/quote]


You are right that sex inside marriage does make one impure. But Mary because she is the mother of the second person of the Trinity is someone who is sacred. Sacred literally means set apart. Our society does not have much that is considered sacred anymore. The best analogy that I can think of is the good China. You don’t use the good china for common use. This idea of things that have a holy use being set apart can be clearly seen in the Bible.


[quote]Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed. (Ezekiel 44:1-2)[/quote]

In Catholic traditionally Mary is seen as the gate that Jesus used to enter this world and obtain his body, the temple of God. But even if you reject this, the concept is clear that there are some things that are sacred and because of this it is not right to use them in a common way.

There is more evidence that Mary is something sacred. Biblically, Mary is a type of the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. There is some very interesting proof for this belief. In the Ark there were three objects, the manna, the staff of Aaron, and the tables. In Mary she held the perfect fulfillment of these objects that were in the Ark of the Covenant.(see John 6:51-52, John 10:11, John 1:14) In Luke Chapter one the angle tells Mary that the Holy spirit is going to "overshadow" her. This term is used in the Old Testament to mean God’s presence over the Ark of the Covenant. (Exodus 40:34- 35) The presence of God in the Ark of the Covenant was so holy that if you even touched it you would die. In fact that is exactly what happened when Uzzah touched the ark to stop it from falling over (2 Sam 6:6-7). There is more evidence that Mary is a type of the Ark of the Covenant. To see this evidence go [url="http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html"]Here[/url]. Like the Ark of the Covenant she is sacred (set apart) and because of this she did not have sexual relations with Joseph.

Edited July 31, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jul 29 2004, 04:27 PM'] Ok guys need your help!

I just argued that Mary was the spouse of The Holy Spirit...and the poster said that it is a false statement because she was married to Joseph...how do I argue that??? [/quote]
I would just ask two questions.

1. Who is Jesus’ father?


2. Was Jesus born illegitimate (i.e. without the commitment of marriage by Jesus’ true father)?

[goldenchild17]

Hey, here's another one I'm struggling with. I had said that that we are the ones who had become strangers to Jesus because of our sin. But this is a little different and I don't quite understand it.

[quote]8 I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother's sons

It doesn't say " my brethern have become strangers to me and my mother's sons have become aliens.", which it would have to say if what you are claiming is right. Look at the wording .... HE ( JESUS ) is the one who BECAME the stranger and alien....It is NOT saying we became the stranger and alien because of our sin.

Support for this? No problem. Jesus was born, grew up, learned the trade of a carpenter, and lived a relatively normal life it appears from what little is said in scripture of His life before He began His public ministry. He then begins a very public ministry, claiming to be the Christ. After this happens, we see his brothers not believing Him, and HE ( JESUS ) becomes a stranger to His brethren and an alien to His mother's sons.

Mark 3:13, 14, and 21 13 And He went up on the mountain and called to Him those He Himself wanted. And they came to Him. 14 Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 31 2004, 01:46 PM'] [Psalm 69] 8 I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother's sons

It doesn't say " my brethern have become strangers to me and my mother's sons have become aliens.", which it would have to say if what you are claiming is right. Look at the wording .... HE ( JESUS ) is the one who BECAME the stranger and alien....It is NOT saying we became the stranger and alien because of our sin.

Support for this? No problem. Jesus was born, grew up, learned the trade of a carpenter, and lived a relatively normal life it appears from what little is said in scripture of His life before He began His public ministry. He then begins a very public ministry, claiming to be the Christ. After this happens, we see his brothers not believing Him, and HE ( JESUS ) becomes a stranger to His brethren and an alien to His mother's sons.

Mark 3:13, 14, and 21 13 And He went up on the mountain and called to Him those He Himself wanted. And they came to Him. 14 Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him [/quote]
he is essentially saying that our interpretation does not work b/c in Psalm 69 Jesus becomes strangers of us, whereas we assert that we become strangers of him.

however, in his proof of his interpretation, he actually proves OUR case. when he starts to talk about Jesus' life, he says that Jesus became the stranger b/c [i][b]His brothers did not believe[/b][/i]. so, just like in the verse in question, Jesus becomes a stranger b/c of the unbelief--the action of--others.

in both examples, Jesus becomes the stranger of us b/c of our unbelief

[goldenchild17]

But how is this to be said? Basically, her thesis is that the Psalm is teaching that Jesus had physical brothers and sisters. How is this refuted? I'm getting confused.

Edited July 31, 2004 by goldenchild17

[luciana]

(I checked out the website yesterday...I signed up , but didn't have the energy or guts to respond at 3 AM last night I'm only abeginner in apologetics and never did it online. )


Basically, she's trying to use one line of Psalm 69 to back up her pre-conceived notion.

It was mentioned to her before that verse 8 doesn't necessarily have to apply to Jesus. She counters that it is a Messianic psalm so it does. Verse 4 and 9 are the only main verses, and anyway if she says that EVERY verse is referring to Jesus then verse 6 says (Parapharsing here) " I (the mssiah) have sinned against Yahweh". Jesus didn't sin against God the Father.
She or someone else countered w/ a stretcher that it refers to how Jesus took upon sin for us, even though it say that THE SPEAKER has sinned in Yahweh's eyes.

Also, we mentioned that verse 8 which refers to his brethren being allienated from Him, could be us (sinners) alienating ourselves from Jesus.

So, like Cure says above ^^^^ [quote] Jesus became the stranger b/c His brothers did not believe. so, just like in the verse in question, Jesus becomes a stranger b/c of the unbelief--the action of--others.
in both examples, Jesus becomes the stranger of us b/c of our unbelief[/quote]

If she says this is stretcher, well, so is HER reasoning. Like I said before, She's coming to scripture w/ her own "tradition", in a way, the Protestant Reformed position (which is new as P3chrmd told her the Reformers agreed w/ the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) that Mary had other children,, and is trying to clip little verses here and there to support it. It's like "oooh, here's another verse I just found to knock down Cath. arguments"
This just proves you need Sacred Tradition and the Church to know what is the correct teaching.

[P3chrmd]

[quote]If she says this is stretcher, well, so is HER reasoning. Like I said before, She's coming to scripture w/ her own "tradition", in a way, the Protestant Reformed position (which is new as P3chrmd told her the Reformers agreed w/ the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) that Mary had other children,, and is trying to clip little verses here and there to support it. It's like "oooh, here's another verse I just found to knock down Cath. arguments"
This just proves you need Sacred Tradition and the Church to know what is the correct teaching. [/quote]

AMEN!

[luciana]

yep, yep, yep

Thank you

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother's children. (Ps 69:9[/quote]


Ok lets interpret this passage. There are two senses of scripture the literal and the spiritual/allegorical. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#115"](CCC 115)[/url] The literal sense, when it talks about mother is David’s mother. Now if the spiritual meaning of this passage is in reference to Mary and if Mary truly had children (for arguments sake) then there is another problem. In the Bible some of Jesus’ “brethren” did follow Jesus. So can the mother be referring to some one or something else which fits the context better?

In a spiritual sense the mother is referring to the old Jerusalem, the Jews under the Old Testament law, that reject Christ. Paul makes the same allegorical connection between mother and Jerusalem in this passage.


[quote]Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the [b]present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children. But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother[/b].  (Gal 4:24-26)[/quote]

This interpetation fits better because in a way they were the ones that called for Jesus' death.


If they reject my interpitaion then the subject of who has the authority to decide who is right can come up.

Edited August 1, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

We also have history on our side;


[quote]This stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James' death (James died in A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400. [/quote]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Burial_Box_of_St_James_Found.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Burial_Box...James_Found.asp[/url]


Also go here to get a lot of Church father quotes on Mary being ever virgin;

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp[/url]

[phatcatholic]

to summarize:

--vs. 8 is not Messianic just b/c it exists w/in a Messianic psalm
--the literal sense means the "mother" is David's
--one spiritual sense of the verse makes the mother Mary and the "brethren" all those who are brothers and sisters in Christ (aka present Christians)
--another spiritual sense makes Jerusalen the mother and the "brethren" the jews that did not believe
--in both the OT and the NT example, Jesus becomes a stranger b/c of the unbelief of others
--Christians from antiquity believed that the "brethren" of Jesus were his stepbrothers from Joseph's previous marriage.

all of these points weigh heavily against your oppontent's interpretation.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[StColette]

*takes notes*