FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Would It Be Bad If Jesus Had A Wife?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Lets say some irresitible evidence in an ancient document came around that showed that Jesus had a wife ( I despise conspiracy theories by the way), would this affect Catholic Teaching in a negative way? Or would this contradict any Dogma or established teaching of the Church? If so and why? Coming Across these Mary Magdelene theories made me think of the question.
(09-09-2016, 11:41 AM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]Lets say some irresitible evidence in an ancient document came around that showed that Jesus had a wife ( I despise conspiracy theories by the way), would this affect Catholic Teaching in a negative way? Or would this contradict any Dogma or established teaching of the Church? If so and why? Coming Across these Mary Magdelene theories made me think of the question.

It's a silly question.

The whole purpose of Christ's mission was to offer himself as a vicitim for the salvation of men. He did all and only what was necessary to achieve that. To marry was not necessary to achieve that.

Christ was not married a no discovery of any "ancient document" could establish sufficiently enough what 2,000 years of tradition has held as false.
It's a silly question.

The whole purpose of Christ's mission was to offer himself as a vicitim for the salvation of men. He did all and only what was necessary to achieve that. To marry was not necessary to achieve that.

Christ was not married a no discovery of any "ancient document" could establish sufficiently enough what 2,000 years of tradition has held as false.
[/quote]

Forgive me, I'm not the most knowledgeable person in my faith. And I agree Christ wasn't married and I don't believe we will ever find a document that says so. But the question is would Christ being married pose a threat to Catholic teaching?
(09-09-2016, 12:36 PM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me, I'm not the most knowledgeable person in my faith. And I agree Christ wasn't married and I don't believe we will ever find a document that says so. But the question is would Christ being married pose a threat to Catholic teaching?

Since it's not true, it could not have any effect on Catholic doctrine (which concerns things which are true).

If it's impossible that Christ being married would be demonstrable from any historical source (especially given no Catholic has believed this for two millenia), then it's a question that can only lead you down the wrong path ... to treating the Faith not as certain Truths which are revealed by God, but as some guardrails for seeing what imaginative ideas we can think up that stay within the guardrails.

To even discuss the possibility of such an integral detail of Christ's life to be wrongly understood for 2,000 years by the Church He established and which is guided by God Himself by the Holy Ghost is to undermine the Church and the reliability of revelation.

That's why it's a silly question. It's idle speculation which has at its root the undermining of the reliability of God's revelation.
(09-09-2016, 12:46 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2016, 12:36 PM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me, I'm not the most knowledgeable person in my faith. And I agree Christ wasn't married and I don't believe we will ever find a document that says so. But the question is would Christ being married pose a threat to Catholic teaching?

Since it's not true, it could not have any effect on Catholic doctrine (which concerns things which are true).

If it's impossible that Christ being married would be demonstrable from any historical source (especially given no Catholic has believed this for two millenia), then it's a question that can only lead you down the wrong path ... to treating the Faith not as certain Truths which are revealed by God, but as some guardrails for seeing what imaginative ideas we can think up that stay within the guardrails.

To even discuss the possibility of such an integral detail of Christ's life to be wrongly understood for 2,000 years by the Church He established and which is guided by God Himself by the Holy Ghost is to undermine the Church and the reliability of revelation.

That's why it's a silly question. It's idle speculation which has at its root the undermining of the reliability of God's revelation.

I see what you mean in the sense of undermining. But I still don't see how it would pose a problem to Catholic Teaching. Even the Immaculate Conception was debated for a long time. St Thomas weighed in on the issue during his life.
I'm not sure how it would affect anything, but it makes no logical sense for it to be so.
(09-09-2016, 12:59 PM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2016, 12:46 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2016, 12:36 PM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me, I'm not the most knowledgeable person in my faith. And I agree Christ wasn't married and I don't believe we will ever find a document that says so. But the question is would Christ being married pose a threat to Catholic teaching?

Since it's not true, it could not have any effect on Catholic doctrine (which concerns things which are true).

If it's impossible that Christ being married would be demonstrable from any historical source (especially given no Catholic has believed this for two millenia), then it's a question that can only lead you down the wrong path ... to treating the Faith not as certain Truths which are revealed by God, but as some guardrails for seeing what imaginative ideas we can think up that stay within the guardrails.

To even discuss the possibility of such an integral detail of Christ's life to be wrongly understood for 2,000 years by the Church He established and which is guided by God Himself by the Holy Ghost is to undermine the Church and the reliability of revelation.

That's why it's a silly question. It's idle speculation which has at its root the undermining of the reliability of God's revelation.

I see what you mean in the sense of undermining. But I still don't see how it would pose a problem to Catholic Teaching. Even the Immaculate Conception was debated for a long time. St Thomas weighed in on the issue during his life.

In fact, no, the Immaculate Conception was not "debated" for a long time. St. Thomas Aquinas, did get it wrong, yes, but on a technicality related to his medieval understanding of human biological development. The disputed point was not about the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but rather about when it came about that she was purified from Original Sin and the wounds of Original Sin.

The doctrine that the Blessed Virgin was sinless throughout her entire life has been the commonly held teaching since the early Church. Whether Original Sin was prevented at the moment of her conception (Immaculate Conception) or later before her birth (purification like St. John the Baptist) was a disputable point until the dogma was defined.

As regards Our Lord's life, there has been no Catholic even in the early Church, nor any scriptural reference, nor any reasonable explanation for why he would have married. The only people who would suggest it were Gnostic heretics, many of whom denied the divinity of Christ. No one "debated" this point at all. A few heretics threw out a fantastical Gnostic narrative, perhaps, but it was based on pure fantasy.

So the comparison is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. In the case of Our Lord, it was never believed that he married; in the case of Our Lady, it was always believed that she was sinless.

Given as I suggested above, that to even suggest that it is possible that Christ married would undermine the very reliability of the Church's transmission of Revelation, I can't see how it's a good idea to even entertain the idea or possibility that Our Lord married. It's just going to lead you to doubt, and all because of a silly "what if", that has no bearing on your salvation or anyone else's.
(09-09-2016, 02:30 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2016, 12:59 PM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2016, 12:46 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-09-2016, 12:36 PM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me, I'm not the most knowledgeable person in my faith. And I agree Christ wasn't married and I don't believe we will ever find a document that says so. But the question is would Christ being married pose a threat to Catholic teaching?

Since it's not true, it could not have any effect on Catholic doctrine (which concerns things which are true).

If it's impossible that Christ being married would be demonstrable from any historical source (especially given no Catholic has believed this for two millenia), then it's a question that can only lead you down the wrong path ... to treating the Faith not as certain Truths which are revealed by God, but as some guardrails for seeing what imaginative ideas we can think up that stay within the guardrails.

To even discuss the possibility of such an integral detail of Christ's life to be wrongly understood for 2,000 years by the Church He established and which is guided by God Himself by the Holy Ghost is to undermine the Church and the reliability of revelation.

That's why it's a silly question. It's idle speculation which has at its root the undermining of the reliability of God's revelation.

I see what you mean in the sense of undermining. But I still don't see how it would pose a problem to Catholic Teaching. Even the Immaculate Conception was debated for a long time. St Thomas weighed in on the issue during his life.

In fact, no, the Immaculate Conception was not "debated" for a long time. St. Thomas Aquinas, did get it wrong, yes, but on a technicality related to his medieval understanding of human biological development. The disputed point was not about the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but rather about when it came about that she was purified from Original Sin and the wounds of Original Sin.

The doctrine that the Blessed Virgin was sinless throughout her entire life has been the commonly held teaching since the early Church. Whether Original Sin was prevented at the moment of her conception (Immaculate Conception) or later before her birth (purification like St. John the Baptist) was a disputable point until the dogma was defined.

As regards Our Lord's life, there has been no Catholic even in the early Church, nor any scriptural reference, nor any reasonable explanation for why he would have married. The only people who would suggest it were Gnostic heretics, many of whom denied the divinity of Christ. No one "debated" this point at all. A few heretics threw out a fantastical Gnostic narrative, perhaps, but it was based on pure fantasy.

So the comparison is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. In the case of Our Lord, it was never believed that he married; in the case of Our Lady, it was always believed that she was sinless.

Given as I suggested above, that to even suggest that it is possible that Christ married would undermine the very reliability of the Church's transmission of Revelation, I can't see how it's a good idea to even entertain the idea or possibility that Our Lord married. It's just going to lead you to doubt, and all because of a silly "what if", that has no bearing on your salvation or anyone else's.

Thanks for the response, although the question didn't really make me doubt. But I know what you mean when it comes to the undermining of the Church and think that you made some good points.
(09-09-2016, 03:26 PM)Lethalbean95 Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the response, although the question didn't really make me doubt. But I know what you mean when it comes to the undermining of the Church and think that you made some good points.

It's not the question you should be worried about, but the spirit from which it comes.

It can be very easy to look at our Faith with lots of "what if" questions, and in doing so usually we let our mind and imagination wander about.

That can very easily lead to doubts and loss of our Faith because we start trying (without the necessary background in philosophy and theology) to push the limits of what can be accepted and still remain "Catholic."

It's the same attitude, applied to the doctrine of our Faith, that asks "is this a mortal sin" and avoids it but "is this only a venial sin" and accepts it. It's a dangerous spirit to allow the imagination lots of free reign.

Not that I'm saying you're doing something bad here. In fact, it's a good way to point out this trap that so many of us fall into.
It's an interesting thing that the Orthodox tend to be against the idea of using the imagination for contemplation. They say it can lead one into deluded thoughts/ideas. It does make sense. I personally have an extremely poor imagination (I actually can't picture anything when I close my eyes unless I'm in a sleep-like state), so it's not as much of an issue. In any sense, from a Catholic standpoint mental prayer/mediation and contemplation are quite important, however, they should come from a place of spiritual preparedness and proper intent. Instead of "what ifs" we should be pondering God and His mysteries from a devotional standpoint.
Pages: 1 2