Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!
Our life, our sweetness, and our hope!
To thee do we cry, poor banished
children of Eve, to thee do we send
up our sighs, mourning and weeping
in this valley, of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us; and
after this our exile show unto us the
blessed fruit of thy womb Jesus;
O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary.

Pray for us, O holy Mother of God

That we may be made worthy of the
promises of Christ.
She is not my life, nor my sweetness, nor, and most especially, not my hope! The only, “most gracious advocate” I am trusting in is the Holy Spirit that the Savior sent. Save me the Latria/Dulia distinction! Why don’t any of the Epistles, while trying to exhort and encourage infant churches and christians, encourage these kinds of prayers to the departed saints? Not one exhortation? And to respond to that with, “Well, you’re just trapped in the muddied thinking of Sola Scriptura.” Is ridiculous. On a purely subjective note, when you first became a believer, did you ever have a qualm of conscience or need to be lead through complex argumentation to defend the legitimacy of, let’s say, the Lord’s Prayer? I sure didn’t. I was happy to say it, and still am. But prayers like the Hail Holy Queen, requires you to overcome your “malformed” conscience, brain washed by Protestant thinking. Pay no mind to that trepidation that this just might be idolatry, this prayer is perfectly acceptable before the face of the Living God. I’m sticking with, “My sheep know my voice” and “Sanctify them by the Truth. Your Word is Truth.”

Grace and Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!

And it will be 1000X more confusing if you ASSUME that the RCC in front of you follows or believes in x,y. or z. As one born and raised RCC, with my parents still with ROME, let me tell ya that what comes out of the Vatican, or the Magisterium, and what my Mom believes are two VERY different things. Let the dialogue-ee beware.

Peace to all who love the LAMB
Greg R

If Mary and Joseph continued in mutual consent and were not lacking in self-control, it would not be WRONG for them to abstain from sexual relations for any length of time. Please note that Paul did not specify a time limit on this. It would be possible for a very devout couple to abstain for years and years without threat of falling for temptation.

The word “until” means “up to the point of.” It does not mean “up to the point of, but not afterwards.”

It also doesn’t mean “up to the point of, but then afterwards.”

I.e., Matthew 1:25 simply says nothing about Joseph and Mary’s sexual relations (or lack thereof) after Jesus’ birth. It only describes the situation prior to Jesus’ birth.

FWIW, the syntax of Matthew 1:25 is not identical to that of 2 Kingdoms 6:23 (LXX). That 2 Kingdoms uses an aorist for ginomai (“is/become/happen”) and Matthew 1:25 uses an imperfect for ginôskô (“know”) may or may not mean anything in terms of how the “until” (“until when” in Matthew) is to be understood. Zerwick says “author only concerned here to indicate virginal conception.”

If we weren’t supposed to learn something about Mary in this passage, it could have very neatly been written without her in it at all. John could have written, “On the third day, a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee, and Jesus and His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus said to the servants….” Instead, John took the time to write out the interaction between Christ and His mother. This is why Catholic and Orthodox believers know that we can ask Mary to pray with us and for us, and she will take our (legitimate) needs to Him while directing us to “Do whatever He tells you to do.”

She doesn’t seem to mind, and He doesn’t seem to take it as an affront that the issue was drawn to His attention by His mother.

(P.S. Sorry that things aren’t so great between you and your mom. BTDT. It’s difficult to relate to one’s parents on an adult level, isn’t it?)

The word “until” means “up to the point of.” It does not mean “up to the point of, but not afterwards.”

The Bible never states openly that Mary and Joseph had sex (like it does with David & Bathsheba and other couples). The Bible never states that Mary gave birth to any child other than Jesus. It’s conjecture to say she did, and it’s conjecture to say she didn’t, and we all base our conjectures on tradition, not Scripture.

The ages of the brothers and sisters are not mentioned in the Bible. There is no evidence that they are younger or older in Scripture, so either way, we’re using conjecture to come to a conclusion. The Eastern Orthodox and some Catholics (including myself) think that these siblings are all older, children of Joseph’s from his first marriage that ended when his first wife died.

Think about the episode when the brothers think Jesus isn’t in His right mind and come to end His ministry — in the culture of the day, a younger brother would not have publicly rebuked the oldest brother because it would have brought shame on the whole family.

Also, there is the case of Mary and Joseph “losing” Jesus on a day-long journey out of Jerusalem, then then hurrying back the next day and finding Him on the third day. Jesus was only 12 when this happened. Without birth control, there would have been younger brothers and sisters in tow — let’s say at least 3, and probably one nursing baby. Travel was difficult and dangerous, and if they had little kids with them, Joseph would surely have left Mary and the little kids in the safety of the caravan they were traveling with and gone back alone or maybe with one adult male relative. It’s not like they just turned the minivan around and went back with all the little kids safely buckled into car seats and state troopers manning the interstates to keep people safe from thieves and other criminals.

Then you have the interesting confrontation between the people of Galilee and Jesus, where they say, “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not Mary his mother?” In a male-driven society, they wouldn’t have had to mention Mary at all if all the kids had the same mother and father. Plus, they were assuming that Joseph was Jesus’ father, so of course they would have called any of Joseph’s kids His brothers and sisters, even if they were only step-brothers and step-sisters.

Also, you have Jesus entrusting Mary to John’s care as He was dying on the Cross — something that wouldn’t have been necessary if she had other children to look after her.

Finally — and this is the clincher for me — one has to consider the fact that Joseph and Mary were not 21st Century Christians living in the U.S. where sexual relations is some sort of “right.” They were first century Jews, and very devout Jews who likely knew very well the Old Testament teaching on (a) the Messiah and (b) the Ark of the Covenant. Mary, having receive the Holy Spirit (first human ever to experience that), conceived the Messiah, the Son of God in her very womb, which made *her body* the new Ark of the Covenant. If you go back and read the OT writings about how the Ark of the Covenant was treated — how one touch by an unworthy person, even meant in “goodwill” could cause instant death — you come to realize that no devout Jewish man would even think about having sexual relations with her. This doesn’t mean that sex between a husband and wife is dirty or sinful in any way. Mary and Joseph were in a very unique situation. Both of them had a sacrificial attitude about bringing Christ into the world — Mary laying down her body, her reputation, her family relations, everything! Joseph, too, risking his reputation (which could affect his livelihood), his family and so forth. Would they have also given up sex for this? In a Church were celibacy is a legitimate lifestyle, we Catholics have no problem understanding how this could be. When I used to be evangelical, however, I did witness a big push for marriage and I believe it was even written into our by-laws that the preachers had to be married according to Scripture, so the idea of a celibate lifestyle is a bit too foreign.

Thank God the priest is only repeating Jesus’ words, and is acting “in Christ’s person.” The priest is just as sinful as anybody, just as imperfect, just as fallen. He acts only as Christ told us that he should do.

I too am a cradle Catholic and I got that message loud and clear from the very beginning. I remember the grade-school giggling when Father reminded us that he, too, was a sinner, since our immature understandings had to accept that face. We didn’t think nuns had hair, either.