www.ditl.org

IanKennedy wrote:

Mikey wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:Just a mo. How could they be married and she a virgin. I didn't think that was allowed back then. I thought they had to do it to consecrate the marriage? I've not thought about that before.

I'm just relating what a Catholic priest said. I was busy writing down the hymn numbers that were posted by the aisle so my father-in-law could play them in the lottery.

It was more a rhetorical question, all be it spoken out loud. I don't expect religion to make sense, even within it's own rules.

Well, the version I recall hearing once is: At the time of the conception/pregnancy, they were betrothed but not married. I believe at that point Joseph was on the verge of breaking the betrothal (Assuming Mary was unfaithful) until one of the Angels (possibly Gabriel but I really don't remember) appeared to him and told him to stay with Mary.

That is where the "faith" part plays it's role.

Consecrtation of marriage only mattered if one or the other partner decided it did. If neither one of them mentioned it to anyone, no one would know the difference.

stitch626 wrote:Consecrtation of marriage only mattered if one or the other partner decided it did. If neither one of them mentioned it to anyone, no one would know the difference.

Who told you that? There are a number of eastern European and Middle-Eastern archaic cultures which did look at such things seriously. The couple could lie about it, but that doesn't mean that it was considered "nobody's business."

I didn't say it was no one business. I said it only mattered (as in only would have been an issue) if either Joseph of Mary mentioned they hadn't done it. Because if they kept it to themselves, no one would know.

Right, my point is that there are historically cultures in which "keeping it to yourself" wasn't the done thing.

stitch626 wrote:I didn't say it was no one business. I said it only mattered (as in only would have been an issue) if either Joseph of Mary mentioned they hadn't done it. Because if they kept it to themselves, no one would know.

Yes, but you can't have it both ways. If they're pretending to have done it they can't then claim to have a virgin birth. If they do claim the virgin birth then surely at that point they are saying that they didn't do it and thus, if it was a requirement, not 'properly' married.

IanKennedy wrote:

stitch626 wrote:I didn't say it was no one business. I said it only mattered (as in only would have been an issue) if either Joseph of Mary mentioned they hadn't done it. Because if they kept it to themselves, no one would know.

Yes, but you can't have it both ways. If they're pretending to have done it they can't then claim to have a virgin birth. If they do claim the virgin birth then surely at that point they are saying that they didn't do it and thus, if it was a requirement, not 'properly' married.

By the time it would have been made known to others (when Jesus claimed to be the Messiah) he was already about 30 years old.

Also as the ones in charge of things did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, it wouldn't matter at all.

stitch626 wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:

stitch626 wrote:I didn't say it was no one business. I said it only mattered (as in only would have been an issue) if either Joseph of Mary mentioned they hadn't done it. Because if they kept it to themselves, no one would know.

Yes, but you can't have it both ways. If they're pretending to have done it they can't then claim to have a virgin birth. If they do claim the virgin birth then surely at that point they are saying that they didn't do it and thus, if it was a requirement, not 'properly' married.

By the time it would have been made known to others (when Jesus claimed to be the Messiah) he was already about 30 years old.

Also as the ones in charge of things did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, it wouldn't matter at all.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with it. I'm talking about their families.

IanKennedy wrote:

stitch626 wrote:......
By the time it would have been made known to others (when Jesus claimed to be the Messiah) he was already about 30 years old.

Also as the ones in charge of things did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, it wouldn't matter at all.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with it. I'm talking about their families.

All I can say to that is since it isn't recorded (anywhere, afiak), we don't know if the families of Mary and Joseph had any clue.

Sorry to have started all this. To be fair, the homily in question was delivered by a priest who administered communion then refilled the chalice and took three extra pulls.

Mikey wrote:Sorry to have started all this. To be fair, the homily in question was delivered by a priest who administered communion then refilled the chalice and took three extra pulls.

VERY nice!!! HA!