It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:28 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
 The Marriage of Our Lady & St. Joseph 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post The Marriage of Our Lady & St. Joseph
Julian wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
I don´t know I still have to be convinced that he was a good theologian. I mean he is far, very far from being clear when he writes and he seldom quotes any theologian.

Not to say about some really weird things such as when he said for 3 or 4 times in the same page that at the time when Our Lady was pregnant She was merely the fiancée of St Joseph and not Her Spouse! (page 86)



I just noticed this. In order that people reading this don´t think that Guerard had some heterodox opinions in regards to Our Lady, I have to add that the exact time of the betrothal with St. Joseph is disputed amongst theologians.


Well I don`t think it is disputed (I may be wrong) St Joseph and Our Lady were already married at the time Our Lord caro factum est.
I didn`t say/mean he had heteredox views, just "weird" things.

Quote:
Guerard simply follows the opinion of St. Thomas [Sth. IIIa q. 29 art. 2] there


St Thomas said there they were already married...

Quote:
which I am sure he esteemed more than you do, Cristian :)



Yes, this is beyond any doubt! :)

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:01 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
As I understand it, matrimony under Jewish custom was divided into two stages. The betrothal, followed later by the solemnisation. It was only after solemnisation that the marriage was consummated. The betrothal produced true matrimony, so Our Lady and St. Joseph were definitely married at the time that Our Lord was conceived. St. Thomas in the place cited is definite on this.

This system makes sense in light of the custom of arranged marriages, especially when you consider that a bride might be very young. There could be a considerable delay between betrothal and solemnisation.

Obviously in a culture in which marriage has these features, there will be a common terminology by which people can distinguish the different phases. This is what I understand to be the meaning of "betrothed wife" as used in the Gospels - it refers to a woman who is married but whose marriage has not been solemnised and consummated.

The statement that Our Lady was not married at the time she conceived Our Lord seems to me to be unorthodox and is manifestly opposed to St. Thomas. Is that really what Guerard says, Cristian?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
John Lane wrote:
As I understand it, matrimony under Jewish custom was divided into two stages. The betrothal, followed later by the solemnisation. It was only after solemnisation that the marriage was consummated. The betrothal produced true matrimony, so Our Lady and St. Joseph were definitely married at the time that Our Lord was conceived. St. Thomas in the place cited is definite on this.

This system makes sense in light of the custom of arranged marriages, especially when you consider that a bride might be very young. There could be a considerable delay between betrothal and solemnisation.

Obviously in a culture in which marriage has these features, there will be a common terminology by which people can distinguish the different phases. This is what I understand to be the meaning of "betrothed wife" as used in the Gospels - it refers to a woman who is married but whose marriage has not been solemnised and consummated.


This is exactly the explanation I`ve always read.

Quote:
The statement that Our Lady was not married at the time she conceived Our Lord seems to me to be unorthodox and is manifestly opposed to St. Thomas. Is that really what Guerard says, Cristian?


I hope I didn`t misunderstand him, and if so I apologize in advance, but I remember it shocked me the first time I read it a couple of years ago and when I read it again some days ago I understood him the same way as before... he clearly says they were fiancée and not spouses at that time.

I`ll quote him this afternoon.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
I don´t have the sources here right now, but I´d think the Catholic Encyclopedia would not be completely wrong on this subject:


Quote:
It is probably at Nazareth that Joseph betrothed and married her who was to become the Mother of God. When the marriage took place, whether before or after the Incarnation, is no easy matter to settle, and on this point the masters of exegesis have at all times been at variance. Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data


Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Julian wrote:
I don´t have the sources here right now, but I´d think the Catholic Encyclopedia would not be completely wrong on this subject:


Quote:
It is probably at Nazareth that Joseph betrothed and married her who was to become the Mother of God. When the marriage took place, whether before or after the Incarnation, is no easy matter to settle, and on this point the masters of exegesis have at all times been at variance. Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data


Well perhaps the word fiancée means spouse but before the consummation of the marriage?

I don`t understand how CE may say that of St Thomas when he explicitly says they were already married:

Quote:
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 (Matthew 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."


http://newadvent.org/summa/4029.htm#article2

PS: perhaps this is a little off topic and should be dealt in a separate thread?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:13 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Julian wrote:
I don´t have the sources here right now, but I´d think the Catholic Encyclopedia would not be completely wrong on this subject:


And I would cheerfully expect the opposite. :) It really is a poor work. The story that St. Pius X threw it on the floor when it was presented to him is eminently credible.

On this interpretation of St. Thomas it is violently wrong. But that is why I posted an explanation of marriage as it was structured in Jewish culture, so as to make clear what St. Thomas is referring to. But if you have any doubt, read Article 1 of the same question (Part III, Q.29), where St. Thomas refers to the "espousal" of Our Lady and employs arguments based upon it which only make sense if the term is understood to refer to marriage. For example:
Quote:
It was also fitting for the sake of the Virgin. First, because thus she was rendered exempt from punishment; that is, "lest she should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress," as Jerome says.

Secondly, that thus she might be safeguarded from ill fame. Whence Ambrose says on Luke 1:26-27: "She was espoused lest she be wounded by the ill-fame of violated virginity, in whom the pregnant womb would betoken corruption."

Thirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her wants.

This was fitting, again, for our sake. First, because Joseph is thus a witness to Christ's being born of a virgin. Wherefore Ambrose says: "Her husband is the more trustworthy witness of her purity, in that he would deplore the dishonor, and avenge the disgrace, were it not that he acknowledged the mystery."

Those arguments wouldn't work if "espousal" meant "engagement" rather than marriage.

Article II is the following question: "Article 2. Whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?"

And the answer is, "I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection." The Angelic Doctor then proceeds to demonstrate that this marriage achieved both perfections proper to marriage - viz. the union of souls and the upbringing of children. The answer to the question is therefore "yes."

I'd like to see what other exegetes had to say, after the time of St. Thomas, which would justify the Catholic Encyclopedia using the word "affianced" (which refers to engagement, not marriage, in the English-speaking world at least) to characterise St. Thomas's clear teaching. It's simply a blunder. An offensive one, too.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:23 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Oh, I see, I was wrong (once again!). I went through a few manuals and mariological works. It seems to me that the disputed opinion was held by a few theologians, as it it mentioned in some of the books I consulted. Interestingly, Billuart holds that the espousal took place three months after the Incarnation.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Ok here is the text of G. des Lauriers:


Quote:
« …rappelons que, selon la loi juive, l´épouse adultère devait être dénoncée et lapidée (Deut 23, 21 and 22, 24). Marie n´est que fiancée, mais Joseph en assume la responsabilité, au degré ou déjà il a droit sur elle.
Supposons alors que Joseph ait jugé Marie infidèle, et montrons que cette hypothèse est exclue par le mode de signifier qu´emploie S. Matthieu.
Si en effet Joseph juge Marie infidèle, il devrait « étant juste » en Israël, la dénoncer si elle eut été son épouse ; il doit pour le moins, puisqu´elle est sa fiancée, « ôter le mal de chez lui », et renvoyer Marie. La renvoyer publiquement équivaut a la dénoncer. Parce que Marie est seulement sa fiancée et non son épouse, Joseph peut être juste conformément à la loi, en renvoyant Marie secrètement… «


Quote:
“... let us remember that, according to the jewish law, the adulterous spouse either had to be denounced or stoned (Deut 23, 21 and 22, 24). Mary is but fiancée, but Joseph assumes the responsibility over her, to the degree that he already has a right over her.
Let us suppose then that Joseph had judged Mary unfaithful, and let us show that this hypothesis is excluded by the mode of signification that St. Matthew employs.
If indeed Joseph judges Mary unfaithful, he would have to, "being just" in Israël, denounce her if she had been his spouse; he must at least, since she is his fiancée, "extinguish the evil among him", and send Mary away. Sending her away publically e quals denouncing her. Because Mary is only his fiancée and not his spouse, Joseph can be just according to the law, sending Mary away secretly...” (Cahiers de Cassiciacum 1, page 86)


The text goes a little more further but this is the main part.

Note: edited for posting a better translation.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Last edited by Cristian Jacobo on Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Thank you, Cristian.

I had the right idea and looked up both Billuart and Cajetan (in the Leonine Summa). The idea of the three months after the Annunciation probably derives from the latter.


Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:31 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Julian wrote:
Thank you, Cristian.

I had the right idea and looked up both Billuart and Cajetan (in the Leonine Summa). The idea of the three months after the Annunciation probably derives from the latter.


Dear Julian,

Is there any chance you could type up or scan the commentary of Cajetan from the Summa? I presume it's a footnote or something relatively short.

I've spent all day pondering with some distress the idea that Cajetan wrote that as a supposed commentary on St. Thomas, and worse, that it was permitted to be published in the Leonine edition of the Summa. I really don't like the doctrine, but the thing that is worse, if possible, is that such a twisted interpretation of St. Thomas could come from Cajetan and be included in such an authoritative edition of the Summa. I really would rather there was another explanation.

Billuart I'm not bothered about. Everybody winks occasionally (except if he asserts that he is interpreting St. Thomas too!)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
A friend of mine passed me a better translation of the passage of des Lauriers, so I just edited it.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
And here's Scheeben on the question. It's typically dense and penetrating, after all, Scheeben was German. :)

Note that he follows St. Thomas. In fact, this is essentially an explanation and expansion of the doctrine of St. Thomas.

Quote:
In apparent contradiction to Mary’s perfect virginity as a woman consecrated to God, the fact remains that, according to the Gospels, she was the wife of Joseph. On account of this fact her virginity has been disputed. But, on the contrary, her virginity and particularly her quality of virgin consecrated to God could with equal reason make it appear that her marriage to Joseph was not a true marriage. Considered carefully, the marital character of this relationship is not only not in contradiction to her quality of “the Virgin,” but in miraculous harmony with it; and rightly so, since here a form of marriage is present which indeed is very peculiar, but which, far from being considered imperfect, must rather be regarded as most ideal.

First of all, the expressions of Holy Writ in which Joseph is presented as the “husband of Mary,” and Mary as “the wife of Joseph,” absolutely demand that the relation of Mary to Joseph be in reality a true marriage, not merely a bond of friendship or protection or a simple betrothal. According to the literal sense of their words, some of the Fathers seem to deny this fact, and instead of a marriage appear to accept a mere engagement. It can easily be proved that they had in view only the exclusion of an actual and sexually consummated marriage, or of a marriage in the ordinary form, which in every respect is incompatible with the vow and sacred state of virginity. In fact, Holy Writ itself here avoids the term “marriage” (nuptiae) to which the Fathers take exception, and always uses the expression desponderi. However, this word is not used in the wider sense of being engaged, but in the narrower sense of being married, for otherwise it could not answer to the idea of “wife of Joseph”

The possibility of a real marriage is not excluded through Mary’s virginity. For the virginity of the body merely removes the actual, bodily consummation of the marriage, which supposes the latter as already existing by right. The vow and virginity of mind annul, indeed, the intention to consummate or use marriage in a sexual way, but not, for that reason, the intention to give or obtain the jus mutuum in corpus proprium. The latter intention can also exist in a lawful manner, when the will of the bridal couple is exclusively directed to the other blessings of marriage which are connected with their belonging to each other.

We can rather say that the state of virginity, like the vow, excludes also the possibility of the right of a legal pledging of the jus in corpus proprium and thus abolishes the nature of the tie proper to marriage. By state of virginity In that case is meant the characteristic of Mary as a virgin, consecrated to God. In her this characteristic is not less perfect, but rather, particularly after the conception of Christ, is undoubtedly more perfect than that which is brought about through a solemn vow. From the point of view indicated, it is beyond dispute that the mutual right to the body of the other, understood as with ordinary marriages, that is, as jus utendi corpore alterius, is here no more conceivable as a radical right than as an actual and formal one. Thus in the relation of Mary to Joseph the marriage tie is not entirely of the same nature as in ordinary marriages.30

30 This also seems to be indicated by the Fathers, when they refuse to acknowledge any nuptiae in the case of Mary.

Even if we grant all this, a real marriage in contradistinction to every other union of two persons still remains conceivable with Mary. This is so not only in regard to the more general idea of the oneness of man and woman, brought about through the will and power of the Creator, with the mutual rights and duties of undivided and indissoluble connection of life, but also with the more special idea of jus in corpus alterius. For this right is not simply excluded under every form. Not only may it be imagined as a right of disposal to beget the fruit, but also as a right of pleasure with regard to the co-possession of the fruit, to be won by God. For a natural marriage the last mentioned right is dependent on the first. Nothing, however, prevents God from granting the last right independent of the first in a marriage, contracted only for an entirely unique end and with His special authorization.

A real marriage was necessary, under the form in which it was possible with Mary without damage to her virginity. Indeed so necessary was it that the same end for which virginity was required in Mary, namely, the worthy realization, exercise, and revelation of her divine motherhood, demanded at the same time the marriage state with the virginal mother.

Hence the contracting of her marriage must be ascribed not less to a special command and inspiration of God than was her vow of virginity. Thus it is evident that God also ensured the virginity in that marriage in a more or less miraculous manner.

Likewise it follows that Mary’s authorization to contract such a marriage does not at all bear the same character as in other cases, where a virgin, dedicated to God, receives permission for this end. This means that it does not bring to the virgin in any way a release from obligations, nor a ceasing of rights on the side of God. It rather has the express end in view, to support the virgin in the fulfilling of her vocation and to protect the rights of God. For it grants to the human bridegroom only those rights which enable him to render the necessary services to the bride of God and to her divine fruit.

Lastly, it is also clear that the close relationship between Mary’s marriage with her human bridegroom and her virginal motherhood must not be regarded merely as outward and accidental, but as an inner and organic one. Thus this marriage has a consecration and dignity higher than all others, and also an exceptional perfection of marriage, that is, in relation to the two most important bona matrimonii; the bonum prolis and the bonum sacramenti.

As for the bonum prolis, this marriage was, not less than any other, intended by God who made it, and therefore fundamentally and essentially to make possible a receiving of the fruit. Over every other virginal marriage it possesses this privilege, that it shares with a consummated marriage without damage to its virginity the blessing of fruitfulness. For in this marriage a fruit had really to be given to the married couple and put under their charge. Although the fruit was not produced through the carnal use of the marriage by husband and wife, it still had to belong to both according to the decree of the divine Father, by virtue of the spiritual unity of husband and wife, just as the natural fruit of a marriage usually belongs to them.

This marriage possesses still another privilege above every non-virginal marriage: the fruit of it is entirely and essentially holy; and at the same time husband and wife have cooperated in a higher manner by their common and virginal surrender to God to win the fruit than is the case through carnal relations with regard to a natural fruit.

The bonum sacramenti directly defines in marriage the bond, which, according to its nature, is elevated above all other unions among men. This consists in the fact that a person is so connected with or so bound to another by the will of God that they form one indissoluble whole, and in and through it, as an instrument belonging to God, are taken possession of by God Himself for the joint achievement of a service.

The perfection of this bond is thus the higher according as the service of God, to which the one person is united with the other, is holier; and the belonging to God, in virtue of which the one person elevates the other, is more sublime. Thus the relationship of Joseph to Mary incomparably excels in both respects not only the natural marriage before and apart from Christianity, but also the other Christian marriages. It exceeds them in the same measure as the production and care of Christ is a higher design than that of mere human beings who must become members of Christ, and as Mary is an instrument belonging to God and a member of Christ in a manner more sublime than any other human being who is ordained by baptism to be an instrument of God and member of Christ

It cannot be said here, as with a marriage of two Christians, that each party is sanctified by the other. The higher sanctity, previously mentioned, of the marriage tie of Joseph and Mary does not suffer under it, for it is thus solely because Mary cannot receive her ordination as Mother of God through marriage with a human bridegroom: here the marriage had rather to derive its higher ordination from the highest ordination of the woman, independent of the bridegroom.

The often repeated expressions, (in Greek) are decisive for the reality of the marriage of Mary and Joseph. The Vulgate translates (in Greek) sometimes by uxor sometimes by conjux.31 The expressions are clear and do not allow another meaning.

31 Matt. 1:16,19 (vir) Luke 2:5 (uxor); Matt. 1:20, 24 (coniux).

According to this, we must explain the other term, (in Greek), desponsata,32 with which Mary is indicated after, as well as before, the “acceptation” by Joseph. This verb can, indeed, mean a mere engagement, but does not possess that meaning exclusively. It is used rather in the sense of being married. Hence the exact translation is not “betrothed,” but “married,” i.e., bound by marriage.

32 Matt. 1:18, Luke 1:27; 2:5.

The given expression has, according to its nature, the tendency to show formally the marriage relationship according to its spiritual and ethical side, as matrimonium ratum. It is also used in Scripture with regard to Mary in three texts in a restrictive sense for matrimonium pure ratum, to indicate the exclusion of carnal relations, more correctly, to throw the right light upon Mary’s conception and pregnancy as supernatural in contrast to her relationship to Joseph.

We cannot discover any reason why the marriage of Mary and Joseph had not already taken place before the conception of Christ, since, before as well as after, Mary is usually called (in Greek), even on the occasion of the journey to Bethlehem. In that passage the Vulgate translates it uxor. All who accept a real marriage with Mary regard it as lawfully solemnized by that time.

Moreover, in Joseph’s deliberation with the angel about the “taking unto him his wife,” it is not excluded, but supposes that Mary was already “the wife of Joseph,” thus united to him through marriage. Yet the “taking unto him,” which followed later, is the only positive indication from which it could be concluded that the marriage was solemnized after the conception of Christ. To explain the scriptural text, we need not even have recourse to the fact that with the Jews there was not such a sharp line drawn between engagement and marriage as in Christianity.

As to the possibility of a real marriage, those theologians who stress the fact that the preceding vow of Mary was made conditionally, also hold that, with the contracting of her marriage, she had the conditional will to make the use of marriage possible if God so wished it. But this conditional will is not necessary for the validity of the marriage.

The reasons why marriage was fitting for Mary are listed by St. Thomas.33 He mentions twelve reasons, according to these three categories: in relation to Christ, to Mary, and to us. As to the text of the Gospel, these reasons seem partly to require that the real marriage, and not the simple engagement, already existed at the time of the conception of Christ. They seem further to require, particularly for the complete safeguarding of Mary’s honor, that the external cohabitation of husband and wife should have also already begun before the conception. In any case no definite and intrinsic reason can be advanced for the opposite.

33 St Thomas, IIIa, q.29, a. 1.

We may regard as conclusive the reason by which this meaning is confirmed: the angel’s admonition to Joseph “to take unto him Mary his wife” and the following mention that the command was obeyed. For this “taking unto him” stands in contrast to the previously mentioned “to put away.”

As this latter expression indicates a living together as already in existence, the former can also be understood as the abandoning of the idea of sending away, or the firm resolution to live together continually.34

34 For the opposite opinion, see Caietanus M. Perrella, “B.V.M. com coelestem excepit nuntium, S. Joseph sponsalibus solum non vero nuptiis iuncta erat” in Divus Thomas (Piacenza), XXXV (1932), 378 98; 519-31.

As for the perfection of this marriage, read the text of St. Thomas, where he explains how the proles is truly a bonum matrimonii here.35

35 St. Thomas, In 4 Sent., dist. 30, q.2, a.2 ad 4.
36 Cf. Gen. 4:1.

Generally, even with ordinary marriages their relationship to the “fruit” is better and more ideally expressed through susceptio prolis per Deum (on behalf of God), than through the joint procreation. Thus the child is marked as the fruit of the divine blessing, from which its soul originates, and the productive function of the parents is considered in its relation of service to the divine cooperation. From this point of view and for this reason the child in ordinary marriage is first given and appropriated by God to the mother, and by the mother to the father, and this not only for the sake of the physical influence of the father upon the production of the child, but at the same time by virtue of the father’s corporeal proprietorship of the mother, or also in virtue of the unity of both.

As from this point of view the perfection of the marriage between Mary and Joseph remained more easily safeguarded, the real form also of this marriage is an instructive example for the ideal view of marriage in general.

From it, finally, there follows a deeper understanding of the paternity of St. Joseph. It is certainly more than a merely apparent paternity in the form of guardianship or adoption. For it rests upon the perfection of the marriage of Joseph with the bodily mother of the child.37

37 See Suarez, op. cit., disp. 8 sert. 1.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Cassiciacum Thesis - Canons 175 (and 183 and 160)
Thank you!

No, Cajetan is actually far from saying that. But I thought this might be the a remote origin for this "fiancée thesis".


Attachments:
cajetan1.JPG
cajetan1.JPG [ 139.17 KiB | Viewed 26836 times ]
cajetan2.JPG
cajetan2.JPG [ 94.92 KiB | Viewed 26836 times ]
Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:39 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: The Marriage of Our Lady & St. Joseph
Could anyone elaborate on Cajetan's position (translated here http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10723#p10723) and some other things?

1. Is Cajetan truly saying here that he believes they were only engaged when the Annunciation took place? It is a little confusing. Saying that "...the solemn nuptials were not yet celebrated when Our Lady conceived of the Holy Ghost" seems to imply that he believes they were only engaged, but the rest gets a little confusing and makes me unsure about that statement. Can anyone clarify this?

2. Did Billuart really hold the "only engaged" theory? Were there other theologians or prominent Catholics prior to the 20th century that taught the "only engaged" theory?

3. What level of assent is required for the teaching that Our Lady was married when the Annuciation took place? Is this proposition one of faith and morals? Is the opposite proposition, that Our Lady was only engaged when the Annunciation took place, a heretical one?

I believe, from all I've seen, including in this thread, that Our Lady was married, not just engaged, when the Annunciation took place. It seems like there is a consensus in the Church on this. I'm not asking these questions because of doubts, but to simply gain a more precise and accurate knowledge concerning these things. I know people who consider the "only engaged" theory to be an absolute heresy and consider those that hold the view as absolute heretics. Although I think the "only engaged" theory is a view we are not allowed to hold, I'm not so sure holding this dissenting view reaches the level of heresy.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:33 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The Marriage of Our Lady & St. Joseph
Joe Cupertino wrote:
I know people who consider the "only engaged" theory to be an absolute heresy and consider those that hold the view as absolute heretics. Although I think the "only engaged" theory is a view we are not allowed to hold, I'm not so sure holding this dissenting view reaches the level of heresy.


Hi Joe,

I'm amazed that there are people with that view. I agree it's unsound, but it's clearly tolerated by the Church. This is manifest from the approach that Cajetan, Scheeben, and others take to it.

It's a question of faith, not morals, but not (yet) defined. It's what theologians call "definable" and might well one day be defined.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:55 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.