by-grace-of-god:

mademoiseli:

snakesaredelicious:

mademoiseli:

residinginpurgatory:

archer-bro:

patron-saint-of-smart-asses:

libertypical:

patron-saint-of-smart-asses:

walkingxwithxstrangers:

journeyofaconvert:

patron-saint-of-smart-asses:

They can start having sex as soon or as far away from their wedding night as they feel comfortable with.

However, you do have to consummate your marriage if you are Catholic. The Church also encourages the practice of natural family planning, so if you are trying to avoid pregnancy that might mean abstaining from relations until a later date from your wedding, until you are infertile or at certain periods in your marriage, but if you don’t consummate your marriage (as a Catholic) that can be grounds for an annulment from my understanding.

Ok but what about Mary and Joseph though? They never consummated their marriage. Why is that a bad thing? Seriously, someone tell me

Because Mary was a virgin dedicated to God’s service, who was then chosen to be His mother, and Joseph was to be her guardian. Furthermore, the Holy Family’s purpose was to raise up the Savior before He would start His ministry, not emulate marriage for other people to copy.  They had a valid marriage, but it was a special exception, considering they were raising God in the flesh Himself.

Here is an article that may interest you: https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-how-could-marys-marriage-to-joseph-be-considered-valid-when-it-was-not-consummated/

Except they did consummate their marriage, because they had children after Christ was born

I think Catholics are just making it up as they go

Thanks for showcasing your ignorance on the topic of our faith but it contributed nothing to the conversation. Have a nice day!

Thanks for not even responding to the counter argument besides an ad hominum.  I mean, Matthew 1:25 clearly says they did consummate.

No, it doesn’t. Your English translation just makes it look like they might have.

The English reads something along the lines of: “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth […]”

The Greek word translated to until is ἕως (heós). The Greek word does not have the same connotations of “until”, which implies that whatever is being talked about happened after a certain point. The Greek only means that it didn’t happen before a certain point, without commenting on what happened after. This verse isn’t saying that Joseph and Mary had sex after Christ’s birth, but is rather reaffirming the virginal nature of Christ’s birth.

We can see that ἕως lacks this “it happened afterward” connotation by looking at other times that this word is used in the Greek Bible.

“Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to [ ἕως ] the day she died.” (2 Samuel 6:23). Clearly, Michal did not give birth after she died.

“And Samuel did not see Saul again until [ ἕως ] the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.” (1 Samuel 15:35). Again, Samuel did not see Saul after he himself had died.

This is a genuine question and I don’t mean to offend, but why would Michal not having children until her death be a good comparison? Regardless of the connotations of this word in various languages, it would be obvious that a woman is incapable of having children after death.

Again, I mean no offense, and I’m only bringing up a counter-argument I’ve heard before.

It’s just meant to show that insisting the “until” used in Matthew 1:25 implies a change is not a good counter when there are other sections in the Bible that use “until” for emphasis but not a change. If, as was said above, Matthew 1:25 is clear in it’s writing that “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth […]” absolutely has to mean there was a change (as in, they had sex after Christ was born), then the same wording from 2 Samuel would have to mean Michal would have given birth after she died, because in this reading “until” inherently implies a change.

There are some other places “until” is used to state emphasis but no change like in 1 Corinthians 15:25, 1 Timothy 4:13, and Acts 25:21 if you would like other examples.

1 Corinthians 15:25 – For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

1 Timothy 4:13 – Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

I guess these comparisons do make more sense for this particular argument. Thank you for your reply.

This topic has piqued my interest as of late, since I was studying Church history recently and learned that even the reformers (including Calvin) believed in perpetual virginity. Of course, not all Protestants agree with everything the reformers said, and many reject this doctrine.

Hi @mademoiseli, I noticed your tag: #i wonder when rejection of this doctrine became common place in Protestant Christian circles

I’ve referred to this article ‘MARY IN SCRIPTURE’ numerous times because Mary continues to be misunderstood by Protestants. Well worth the read imo. 

“Over the last two centuries many Christians have lost the Scriptural Mary venerated and praised by all Christians in every other century. Two factors in particular led to this loss. The first was the decision to ignore the interpretations of Scripture adopted historically by the Christian faithful and to replace these with one’s own interpretations. The second was the decision to ignore the divine inspiration of Scripture so as to make interpretations solely using the criteria and tools employed by professional historians. The first factor led to the Fundamentalists and the second to the Liberals.

[…] The biblical Mary of the apostolic community and the Fathers was deeply rooted in the Old Testament and the entire salvific message of the New Testament. The overwhelming presence of Mary in Scripture led both to the great definitions of Marian doctrine and the liturgical devotions. Without an understanding of the Scriptural portrait of Mary it is difficult to truly appreciate the Marian doctrines. Even at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Marian imprint on Scripture was evident to both Catholics and Protestants. It was certainly evident to Martin Luther.

Many Post-Reformation Protestants, however, seem to be suffering from collective amnesia on the question of Mary. Despite their ardent commitment to Scripture, the Fundamentalists have failed to see any Marian connection in Scripture. Nevertheless today Protestant and Catholic exegetes and theologians have rediscovered the Marian “mother lode” not just of the New but also of the Old Testament. Like the Fathers, the modern exegetes now see Mary as the Daughter of Zion, the embodiment of Nation Israel, as the Ark of the Covenant, as “transformed by grace”, as the New Eve, as the bride at the Messianic Wedding Banquet and as the Church. If this development in understanding was simply a modern fad we could legitimately call it into question. But it is actually a rediscovery of what the Christian community from the earliest times and the Scriptures themselves so obviously tell us about Mary.”