Please pray for me. Prayers all we need truly need in this world. My husband passed away years ago. I’m a single mother. I feel so alone. I have two beautiful sons, both of my sons are autistic. I’m just overwhelmed. Heavenly Father I know you don’t give us no more than we can handle. But Lord have mercy on me. I need a breakthrough. Since covid I can’t seem to get back on my feet. I was fired from my job for declining the vaccine. I declined due to my lupus and I also have a heart condition. I’m waitressing but not making nearly enough. Every month is a struggle not to end up on the streets with my children. I’m struggling putting groceries in my refrigerator. Struggling to pay rent. But, thankfully God has provided this far. I know and have faith he will continue. Faith over fear. We should praise God even in hard times. I love you Jesus! Thank you Heavenly Father.
Oh dear. I see you're back again under a different name. It was Angela Tiffany Rogers the first time you told us your sad story in 2021. That was when I first put you on my prayer list. Every Catholic website you leave a message on (always under a different name), you embellish the story a little more. I do pray for you because you are clearly in need of God's forgiveness and grace.
U can write & place your intentions in the mass intentions box which should be just inside where U enter. The intentions will receive more grace from one mass than can be gained from the prayers of many. Can't do that? Find someone that can for U. IDK why it seems no one knows this. It should be made more known and practiced.
Father seemed to overlook the situation of Josephite/spiritual marriages where the couple enters, exchaning bodily rights, but agreeing to abstain from sexual intercourse. Saints have done this, and St Francis de Sales commends the practice. They *may* consummate, but their intention going in is not to.
Nowadays it would give the impression that one of them had him or herself sterilized or was otherwise practicing birth control. By no means is perpetual abstinence in marriage a good idea today. People who don't want to have children should remain chastely celibate (unmarried).
@@ElizabethDMadison A decision of prudence really. Depending on the circumstances, if the couple chooses to live simply, it can bear great spiritual fruits for both. More time to prayer, greater stability, mutual support, freer to work together for the corporal and spiritual works. However, a decision of prudence certainly to be thought about with a wise and orthodox priest.
@@jimcook1747 I've definitely heard that it's not consistent with the theology of marriage as developed today for people to plan that from the time of their wedding. If two people do not want to consent to have relations and be open to children that are conceived, they do not want to consent to what marriage is. Their intentions are something different than what marriage is. I am celibate not married. Remaining unmarried for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is the way to be free from obligations to a spouse to give oneself to prayer and works of mercy. Some people idealize what they think is the best of both worlds but it is necessary to devote oneself to one vocation or the other.
@@hija7sion It's not marriage. It's being roommates with a person of the opposite sex and that isn't appropriate for people who want to live in perfect chastity.
There's also precedent in that a woman was allowed to take a bow of celibacy provided her husband or father did not object, so a wife being celibate because of a vow was not unheard of.
@@micahhenley589 I would suggest looking at "the Jewish roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. As he covers it better but it was a vow that was made similar to nunnery but was allowed to marry so that the woman was taken care of. Such a vow was part of why husbands and fathers could nullify a vow in numbers 30. It's part of why Mary would say question how she would conceive since it doesn't make sense for a newlywed that intends to consummate the marriage to question how she would have a baby. As to the Godliness which is more Godly a man that takes a woman and voids her vow or a man that takes a woman for wife solely to can and provide for her
@@micahhenley589 There is examples of this in ancient Judaism. Vows of chastity within marriage could be taken before/after children provided both parties agreed as per Professor of Ancient Judaism Dr Brant Pitre in his book The Jewish Roots of Mary.
@@scurvydog20 Well in the bible, God commands sexual intimacy in a loving marriage(1 Corinthians 7:2-5). It's not optional. It's a direct command and His commands keep us safe. They are a light to our feet and lamp to our paths. To refuse sex in a marriage is to twist God's design for marriage and that is known as sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is by definition a twisting of God's design and purpose for marriage/sex.
I think the approach taken of "Theology of the Body" by John Paul II would be appropriate. He spent the first 5 years of his Pontificate on the meaning of marriage in his weekly addresses (1979-1984), so they should not be ignored. JPII explained how Adam and Eve were an incarnation or reflection of the Trinity on earth. He used the Latin term "Communio Personarum" or Community of Persons. The "love" between and man and woman procreates a third person. Or hopefully more. In heaven, the Father generates the Son and their perfect love 'spirates' a third person, the Holy Spirit. It is notable that Aquinas, for whatever reason, doesn't point this out in the Summa. In the human condition - as CS Lewis observes in "The Four Loves" - each type of love needs to be taken up into charity to find its perfection. According to the great Trappist monk, Dom Eugene Boylan, in his classic "This Tremendous Lover" - according to God's original plan - Adam and Eve would have been assumed into heaven after their period of probation had ADAM not sinned (original sin is passed on through the male only). And so would their children if they too had not sinned. But the protogospel of Genesis 3:15 promises a redeemer through his mother, who will be regenerators of the human race. Jesus and Mary, the new Adam and Eve, will replace the fallen pair. The purpose of marriage remained the same before and after the fall: to create souls for heaven. And to glorify God by sharing his nature with his creatures. Only now since "Bonum diffusivum sui est" [goodness seeks to diffuse itself] God will be able to glorify himself even more through his goodness by redeeming a miserable race of creatures (i.e. us). It had to be that way because angelic natures are not redeemable. A redeemer for them would be impossible. Clearly, the highest end of marriage is to produce citizens of heaven with whom God can share his glory. After the fall, the plan had to be modified because of the need for a redeemer. The original command of "Go forth and fill the earth" of Genesis 1:28 (i.e. marriage) needed divine intervention - as the human race was now incapable of heaven because of original sin. That intervention occurred through the new Adam and Eve. The love of Joseph and Mary was surely more intense and perfect than that of any other couple in history. Because it was ordered to and empowered by their love of God (charity). Doing God's will is the highest possible love of all - the end of all true loves as Aquinas and CS Lewis point out. Love is only "love' when it ordered to charity. So yes, Mary and Joseph were "more married" than say the parents, of Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Sienna, who had (count 'em) 25 children.
Listening to Father Pine makes me realize, use and display your God-given talents, don't make yourself appear useless to be someone's punching bag, redeem yourself. Strike a balance between egoism and humility. Too many narcissists think any attention you receive is a slight on them, just makes them look infantile and immature. People with high levels of narcissism have infected the church and are a great evil, separate the wheat from the chaff. It's almost always people in positions of influence and/or authority who abuse their platform.
Uniontown or Washington? : ) My roots are Venango County and the hamlets outside Pittsburgh, eg. Tarentum, Carrick, Hays, Allegheny, & Monongahela Valleys.
Impotence is an impediment to marriage. Canon 1084: §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature. §2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null. §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript ofcanon 1098.
Technically the children were born out of wedlock. But the Church doesn’t use the term “illegitimate children.” Governments may, but the Church doesn’t specify (there’s really no need for a child to be labeled legitimate or illegitimate.)
The *only* case I can think of that'd be a valid annullment is in the television show 'Arrow' where not only *one* but *both* members of the "marriage" were coerced into the marriage; but even that would require that at least one, if not *both* members of the "happy couple" were to bring this matter to the "Church tribunals" for a hearing in that case. Yet my argument stands, in this regard: if one, or Heaven forbid, *both* husband and wife are threatened to coerce their consent to the marriage: IT IS NOT A MARRIGE, but something truly horrid, an act of marital rape of *both* of the couple, by the one, or ones, who coerced them. "Arrow" is a fantasy story, basically the hero's a "Robin Hood" of sorts; but the element of coerced marriage is what I was drawing on; yet if we even permit sex to be an element of focus; we risk being intoxicated on lust- and to enter into a marriage in that mindset is far worse: it is basically something of Hell's culture, as Tobit makes abundantly clear; besides, why even permit ourselves to allow our focus to be on physical intimacy? Now granted, it is to be within set bounderies, including freely consented to by both husband and wife, and most importantly, open to children- as in the end, the primary and sole focus of marriage is the continuation of the species, the spouses are secondary in that regard; yet vital for the proper character formation of the children. The essence of this is a defense of propriety and virtue; not even allowing the kind of forbidden lust to enter into our minds; lest we as individuals even end up, in the end, sexually abusing our spouses as He so rightly condemned as a doorway to Hell; and "marital rape" really does cut it for "Hell" as a category in the extreme.
Virginity for the unmarried is a beautiful thing and precious in the sight of God. Likewise, sex in the bonds of a loving marriage is beautiful and precious to God. Please consider the words of your King: *"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:2-5*
If two Catholics have a proper Catholic ceremony but are in a country that doesn't recognize religious marriage as legally binding, will they be living in sin if they do not go to the Tribunal for a civil marriage? If the country recognizes "domestic partnerships (hetero)" as having legal status does that matter?
the marriage in the eyes of the church is what matters with regards to sin, not the government Im not sure of the exact context, but couples in america still file for a civil marriage after their wedding, so getting a catholic wedding then going through the legal process to have a marriage civilly recognized is ok(assuming the civil marriage wouldnt require you to renounce something of your faith)
@bobthebuildest6828 no, in the US the religious service is recognised as legally binding. It doesn't require a separate one. I was married there. It has to be registered but not 2 ceremonies
@@tinalettieri yeah thats what i meant they file with the government after the ceremony, but the church only needs ti be a witness its common(even if not ideal) for catholic/protestant couples to say vows in front of a priest in private then have a ceremony elsewhere to celebrate the wedding that has technically already happened apply this here they do votes in front of a priest and they are not married in the eyes of the church and can do whatever formality the government wants as long as they know the marriage has already begun and the "ceremony" is a formality for the government
@@gardenwithtea Yes, many countries are like that. Italy used to be and is for non-Catholics but I understand that now, if two Catholics want to marry there, the Church ceremony is enough. France is an example of needing both. My qustion was from the Church's point of view. I live in Israel. The only legal marriages performed here are Orthodox Jewish or if two Muslims marry. I'm not even sure Catholic marriages between two catholics are recognized. But if it's a mixed marriage, or if anyone doesn't want an Orthodox rabbinic wedding, they have to go abroad and the foreign marriage will be recognized. Israel has domestic partnership which provides some legal protections. So I was asking if I who returned to the Catholic Church but am registered as a Jewish citizen is blessed with a Catholic husband (I'm a widow) If we had a Catholic ceremony in the Church, would that be sufficient for the Church to say we are not living in sin, or does Catholic Doctrine mandate we follow the civil law of our country? Since Domestic partnerships are permitted legally, even for heterosexual couples, is that sufficient? I am well past childbearing but I am praying fervently for a devout Catholic husband. I am all alone and would love to have someone to share my last years with.
Jesus would never have picked them to be His parents unless He knew they were behaving themselves; so of course their marriage was valid- always was in fact, and that comes out of HIs teachings that shape the Catholic teaching on marriage; any other stance is preposterous in the extreme.
I was raised Catholic. Drifted away from practice in my teens as my mom stopped going, but never left the Church. Married at 18 to someone who wasn’t Catholic. Divorced at 30. Declaration of non-Canonical form says it wasn’t a true marriage. After being married (19) became a Protestant and at 29 had a crisis of faith concerning Protestant Theology which I found problematic. Reading Newman and Chesterton led back to the Catholic Church, which led me to look into the non-Canonical declaration that I mentioned above. Marian doctrines always give me trouble. I don’t see why these things about her perpetual virginity are necessary and to call them infallible Church doctrine is tough because I think she and Joseph probably had sex in their marriage and the Church is likely wrong about this. Not a good Catholic or a Catholic at all to say this for some people. Yes, I know. Just tired of lying and going along with things that don’t make sense. And it doesn’t diminish Mary if she had sex with Joseph. I don’t really have anywhere else to go because the Church is right about more important things than this, so I wish they’d never said this was doctrine.
I had similar problems with the perpetual virginity dogma, but I've reconciled it in the following way revolving around St. Mary's special role in our salvation. She is the only human who is simultaneously daughter to God the Father, mother to God the Son, and spouse to God the Holy Ghost. She mystically encapsulates the three roles of woman, but to God. That's all amazing and sacred but at the same time she was a creature who lived among men and under the imperfect justice of men. Therefore she needed an Earthly guardian-husband or she and the child Jesus would have perished. St. Joseph, the greatest of nobles, fulfilled this role. As a man, I try to imagine ever being intimate with my wife, if I knew she was impregnated by God. I can't. This would mean my wife was actually His and, as a man in service to God, I don't get to share that woman sexually with Him. That might have been tough for St. Joseph but we know he too was in communication with God and angels, so it's reasonable to expect he embraced this holy mission of his with grace, honor, and humility.
Your journey is touching to me. I'm sorry for the turmoil. I'm a Lutheran turning to Catholicism, I really love all the Mariology I've been learning. You raise a small pet peeve of mine, the objection that "they *probably* had sex." I feels presumptuous to me. Historically speaking The Early Church spoke very highly of Mary, to a surprising degree. The idea of Mary being a lifelong virgin is not only an impressive and holy gift, but what the Earliest Christians understood her to be. Moreover, there are actually Biblical clues that Mary had no other children of her own. The Greek word used to refer to "the brothers of Jesus" actually meant "not of the same womb, and my personal favorite example is the Book of John's telling of the Crucifixion. Jesus says "Behold your son, behold your mother," and from that time forward John took Mary into his own home to care for her. Why would a Disciple need to take care of Mary if she had other children there for her? It seems like the obvious answer to me is that she didn't. You're right that Mary and Joseph having marital sex wouldn't be "wrong" as marital sex is a holy thing, but the more I look into it, it simply seems like they just never did.
@@johnmaelstrom3856That's an incredibly good point!! It would not have been proper for Joseph to have sex with a woman who had already concieved God's son.
By far the strangest thing is that ancient Christians, even faced with heresies denying the humanity of Christ, adamantly did not want Him thought of as being birthed in a natural fashion. I would have thought it was obvious that Christians should attest that He grew to be the full size of a newborn in His mother and was PHYSICALLY BORN and emerged in the way all people are born. But when you look at what men were historically thinking you find both that they considered giving birth really disgusting, defiling and animal and the thought of the "manipulations" of the female body in natural birth and becoming unclean (which was the case in Roman as well as Jewish culture) incongruent with extreme veneration of Mary. It seems to have been considered by great churchmen that Jesus must have passed out of Mary's body in some type of subtle and non-messy manner. The first explicit idea of the physical virginity of Mary during Jesus' birth is in the fictionalized Gospel harmony "the Protoevangelion of James" which wasn't factual nor technically accepted by the Church but widely influenced opinion.
I was reading I think about Pentecost in The Book of Acts, can't remember the exact verse. I was reading The Jerusalem Bible in Italian and it specifically said "Maria ed i fratelli di Gesù., ed i11discepoli" "Mary and the BROTHERS of Jesus, and the 11 Disciples." I could be wrong about which passage but I am certain about the actual sentence. It clearly separates "brothers" from "Disciples." Why would Mary have to remain "ever virgin" AFTER Jesus was born?
Is your question why she had to be a virgin after jesus was born ? I think catholic dogma holds that God wished for her remain pure and consecrated in a way that was befitting of his daughter (of God the father , mother(of God the son) and spouse( of the Holy Spirit ) . She is God 's finest creature . (not counting Jesus who was both human and divine )
I've heard arguements those were actually cousins, for when Jesus spoke of them in the Greek translation the word literally meant "not of the same womb."
Also, the Book of John shows Jesus giving Mary over to John while on the cross. "Behold your mother, behold your son." Why would a Disciple need to take care of Jesus' mother it she had other children to care for her?
No - infertility doesn’t hinder a marriage, impotency does. You have to be able to engage in the marital act at the time of getting married, even if you’re infertile for some reason.
@@lettersandwordsandstuffs you’re asking the wrong question - Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura so we have different premises for the argument. This will be pointless.
life and death belongs to god. marriage belongs to god. if abraham killed isaac, it would not be sin because of gods authority. when israel plundered egypt it was not sin because they obeyed god. when hosea married gomer who could not be faithful, it was not sin because he obeyed god, the author of every law and nature and power. god is not under the law and does not need to use the law in order to accomplish the purposes of HIs law
Yes, absolutely they always had a valid marriage from the get-go! It is the married *couple* that by consenting to the marriage make the marriage valid; hence a lie, or any form of trickery and/or forced consent in entering into a marriage is what turns it into really Hell itself- and this agenda of what makes a marriage valid comes straight out of Christ's regulations for a valid marriage. Just because the "happy couple" aren't "bedding" oneanother doesn't dispute the marriage, for the purpose of a marriage is not so much "sex" as it is genuine really proper caring, husband and wife for oneanother. Let me remind you of the warning that the alien we call the archangel Raphael mentioned in the book of Tobit to the young man about entering into a marriage when "high on lust" as I'd put it; he/it said that such a union really is made in Hell itself, as such a "union" really does get extremely abusive. What it said is that the devil gains a lot of power over such people; well: why in the world would frankly an antisexual being take delight in a "matrimony" based primarily on lust *outside* of it leading to mutual marital abuse? None whatsoever; and that sociopathic seraphim we call "Lucifer" aka "the devil" really takes the sickest delight in such a misconduct being engaged in.
@@chissstardestroyer specially, the Eastern Orthodox say the opposite (otherwise) than the title of this video says; that is, the Eastern Orthodox (at least the Greek Orthodox) says they did NOT have a valid marriage. Rather, they say they were NEVER married. They’d say they were ONLY betrothed. They say since they didn’t consummate the marriage it was not a true marriage. But only a betrothal where Joseph was like the grandfatherly GUARDIAN only and NOT her husband. That’s why they call him St Joseph the Betrothed. Whereas, we call him St Joseph, Husband of Mary. Big difference. Check out what JPII said on this point in Redemptoris Custos and also his Wednesday Audience. He flat out says Joseph was a virgin and not an elderly man and that they had a TRUE marriage and we need to uphold this fact.
@@josephology3290 Then their stance diametrically contradicts the gospels; so thus we know that all orthodox faiths are heretical. And a betrothal *was* validly a marriage; so thus we also know their stance to be heretical; as it contradicts reality about these events.
@@josephology3290 For instance, if their faiths' teachings were accurate, which they clearly aren't, then what Mary and Joseph would've been doing is *cohabitating* and thus they'd be involved in deeply mortally sinful misconduct; since both the gospels and Sacred Tradition each confirm that Mary never sinned, it is therefore clear that she did have a valid marriage to Joseph, and thus a full and complete one, so thus sex is not needed to complete the marriage- elsewise they'd have lived in deeply mortally sinful lifestyles, and thus Christ would be a liar. Since the last of those is impossible, it therefore is necessary for us to remove all claims of sex being needed for a valid marriage.
Joyce aheroe cursed me urine bernicebturned into a snake village school reserved taken white thornless rose or quiet beauty who gave me friends I don’t mingle with fornicators I work out my salvation with fear and trembling aunty kedzitor telling me to grind pepper prayers cancel not catholic 5000 given coins of grandma bcos boardmaths something on examination seat ❤❤
The code of canon law cannot be anything but heretical; as it would contradict sacred tradition, as you so validly observe, Fr. then we're obliged to declare the code of canon law to be heretical in all of its stances, and to send the authors of it to Hell where they belong, yes, including canonized saints who penned it- as they called their God's mother a vile woman by penning that preposterous statement that calls His own parents pure evil.
This is so much simpler as a Protestant! Mary was used by God in a very special way, but marriage is a temporal institution for humans in this life ("They will neither marry, nor be given in marriage. They will be like the angels in Heaven"). Mary's union with the Holy Spirit was not marriage.
@@christopherbaird4952Read carefully your Bible. James brother of Jesus? James is “brother” as a disciple or family ties of Jesus but not son of Mary the mother of Jesus. And there are two James. James 1 (son of Cleophas also called Alphaeus Mk. 3:18) John 19:25 “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” Matthew 27:56 “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.” Mark 15:40 “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES the less and of Joses, and Salome;” James 2 (son of Zebedee) Matthew 20:20 “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.” Mark 3:17 “And JAMES the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:” Mark 10:35 “And JAMES and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.” So, not son of Mary nor blood brother of Jesus.
Yes of course they were married. According to the Word this means they became "one flesh" ... they also had other children, and Jesus had brothers as it is written. Stick to the Word!
If you want to stick to the Word you need to study the original languages and you need a better understanding of the cultural differences in which it was written. The Bible wasn't written by English speaking protestants. In the time and culture in which it was written, the word translated as "brother" did refer to brothers....but also to cousins. It's not the slam dunk you're acting like it is
@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal I'm not looking for a slam dunk. Just the truth, which God has provided in His Word. And yes you need to examine the context and the original language. The Greek word used is "adelphoi" which literally means "brother" "from the same womb." So that could not be any more clear. The Word is indeed illuminating! And YES, that word "brother" can be used to mean "brethren" or "brother in Christ" , but this is why you need to look at context. In BOTH PASSAGES where Jesus' brothers are talked about, the context is clear- Jesus is rebuking and correcting the elevation of His blood relatives (His mother and brothers) and pointing instead to His "true" brothers, which are His brothers in obedience to God. If the word was used to mean "brethren" like fellow disciples, then it completely undermines the passage, the teaching Jesus is giving about the importance of obedience to God over being His blood relative. If you are willing to humble your heart and read the Word with eyes to see what the Lord has spoken, He will reveal all things to you. Pray to the Holy Spirit and read the Word! Yes read the Greek too it supports my position 100%! Yes read the context of the surrounding passages they also support my position 100%!
@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal your argument about "adelphoi" (which literally means brother, from the same womb) being used to mean "cousin" is also erroneous. Matthew knew the Greek word for "cousin" and so did the other NT writers. If they wanted to say cousin, they would have. But they specifically said "brother, from the same womb" and God does not make errors or typos. For example, in Collassians 4:10, Barnabas' COUSIN Mark is referenced. Guess what Greek word is used? ἀνεψιὸς (anepsios) which means "cousin, sister's son" NT writers knew the word for cousin. The word "brother" CAN be used to mean "brethren" as in "brother in Christ", but this will depend on the context. But the word adelphoi is NOT used for cousin. Instead the word for cousin is used, literally "sisters son" ... yes please go study the Word and the Greek and the context! All support the truth I am speaking to you! May the Holy Spirit be with you!
James brother of Jesus? James is “brother” as a disciple or family ties of Jesus but not son of Mary the mother of Jesus. And there are two James. James 1 (son of Cleophas also called Alphaeus Mk. 3:18) John 19:25 “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” Matthew 27:56 “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.” Mark 15:40 “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES the less and of Joses, and Salome;” James 2 (son of Zebedee) Matthew 20:20 “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.” Mark 3:17 “And JAMES the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:” Mark 10:35 “And JAMES and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.” So, not son of Mary nor blood brother of Jesus.
@atgred I'm not sure which James you are talking about, since that was a common name in those days and I think there were even multiple disciples by the name of James. But I do know that it is written: Mark 6:3- Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Matthew 13:55- Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Matthew 12:46-50 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Please pray for me. Prayers all we need truly need in this world. My husband passed away years ago. I’m a single mother. I feel so alone. I have two beautiful sons, both of my sons are autistic. I’m just overwhelmed. Heavenly Father I know you don’t give us no more than we can handle. But Lord have mercy on me. I need a breakthrough. Since covid I can’t seem to get back on my feet. I was fired from my job for declining the vaccine. I declined due to my lupus and I also have a heart condition. I’m waitressing but not making nearly enough. Every month is a struggle not to end up on the streets with my children. I’m struggling putting groceries in my refrigerator. Struggling to pay rent. But, thankfully God has provided this far. I know and have faith he will continue. Faith over fear. We should praise God even in hard times. I love you Jesus! Thank you Heavenly Father.
Will pray for you and your family at mass today .God bless .
Oh dear. I see you're back again under a different name. It was Angela Tiffany Rogers the first time you told us your sad story in 2021. That was when I first put you on my prayer list. Every Catholic website you leave a message on (always under a different name), you embellish the story a little more. I do pray for you because you are clearly in need of God's forgiveness and grace.
I will have you in my prayers. Please know that you are never alone. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, all believers in Jesus.
U can write & place your intentions in the mass intentions box which should be just inside where U enter. The intentions will receive more grace from one mass than can be gained from the prayers of many. Can't do that? Find someone that can for U. IDK why it seems no one knows this. It should be made more known and practiced.
@@ellem6050 Holy cow! Let's hope she didn't make it any worse by voting for Joe Biden.
I was talking to a Muslim recently about this! They care a lot about Mary so this was an important question for him.
Strong beard game, padre 💪
Beards build bridges
thanks a lot , Fr Mike ! I've wondered about this for a long time ..
Thats father pine 💀
@@tenmrchicken2719 hahaha ! thanks !
Father seemed to overlook the situation of Josephite/spiritual marriages where the couple enters, exchaning bodily rights, but agreeing to abstain from sexual intercourse. Saints have done this, and St Francis de Sales commends the practice. They *may* consummate, but their intention going in is not to.
Nowadays it would give the impression that one of them had him or herself sterilized or was otherwise practicing birth control. By no means is perpetual abstinence in marriage a good idea today. People who don't want to have children should remain chastely celibate (unmarried).
@@ElizabethDMadison A decision of prudence really. Depending on the circumstances, if the couple chooses to live simply, it can bear great spiritual fruits for both. More time to prayer, greater stability, mutual support, freer to work together for the corporal and spiritual works. However, a decision of prudence certainly to be thought about with a wise and orthodox priest.
@@jimcook1747 I've definitely heard that it's not consistent with the theology of marriage as developed today for people to plan that from the time of their wedding. If two people do not want to consent to have relations and be open to children that are conceived, they do not want to consent to what marriage is. Their intentions are something different than what marriage is. I am celibate not married. Remaining unmarried for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is the way to be free from obligations to a spouse to give oneself to prayer and works of mercy. Some people idealize what they think is the best of both worlds but it is necessary to devote oneself to one vocation or the other.
@@ElizabethDMadisonmaybe it is the right way for some people, if not for you or for most.
@@hija7sion It's not marriage. It's being roommates with a person of the opposite sex and that isn't appropriate for people who want to live in perfect chastity.
There's also precedent in that a woman was allowed to take a bow of celibacy provided her husband or father did not object, so a wife being celibate because of a vow was not unheard of.
Celibate actually means unmarried so that would not have been the terminology.
No Godly husband would ever approve of such a vile thing. There's not a single example of it.
@@micahhenley589 I would suggest looking at "the Jewish roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. As he covers it better but it was a vow that was made similar to nunnery but was allowed to marry so that the woman was taken care of. Such a vow was part of why husbands and fathers could nullify a vow in numbers 30. It's part of why Mary would say question how she would conceive since it doesn't make sense for a newlywed that intends to consummate the marriage to question how she would have a baby. As to the Godliness which is more Godly a man that takes a woman and voids her vow or a man that takes a woman for wife solely to can and provide for her
@@micahhenley589 There is examples of this in ancient Judaism. Vows of chastity within marriage could be taken before/after children provided both parties agreed as per Professor of Ancient Judaism Dr Brant Pitre in his book The Jewish Roots of Mary.
@@scurvydog20 Well in the bible, God commands sexual intimacy in a loving marriage(1 Corinthians 7:2-5). It's not optional. It's a direct command and His commands keep us safe. They are a light to our feet and lamp to our paths. To refuse sex in a marriage is to twist God's design for marriage and that is known as sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is by definition a twisting of God's design and purpose for marriage/sex.
I think the approach taken of "Theology of the Body" by John Paul II would be appropriate. He spent the first 5 years of his Pontificate on the meaning of marriage in his weekly addresses (1979-1984), so they should not be ignored. JPII explained how Adam and Eve were an incarnation or reflection of the Trinity on earth. He used the Latin term "Communio Personarum" or Community of Persons. The "love" between and man and woman procreates a third person. Or hopefully more.
In heaven, the Father generates the Son and their perfect love 'spirates' a third person, the Holy Spirit. It is notable that Aquinas, for whatever reason, doesn't point this out in the Summa. In the human condition - as CS Lewis observes in "The Four Loves" - each type of love needs to be taken up into charity to find its perfection.
According to the great Trappist monk, Dom Eugene Boylan, in his classic "This Tremendous Lover" - according to God's original plan - Adam and Eve would have been assumed into heaven after their period of probation had ADAM not sinned (original sin is passed on through the male only). And so would their children if they too had not sinned. But the protogospel of Genesis 3:15 promises a redeemer through his mother, who will be regenerators of the human race. Jesus and Mary, the new Adam and Eve, will replace the fallen pair. The purpose of marriage remained the same before and after the fall: to create souls for heaven. And to glorify God by sharing his nature with his creatures. Only now since "Bonum diffusivum sui est" [goodness seeks to diffuse itself] God will be able to glorify himself even more through his goodness by redeeming a miserable race of creatures (i.e. us). It had to be that way because angelic natures are not redeemable. A redeemer for them would be impossible.
Clearly, the highest end of marriage is to produce citizens of heaven with whom God can share his glory. After the fall, the plan had to be modified because of the need for a redeemer. The original command of "Go forth and fill the earth" of Genesis 1:28 (i.e. marriage) needed divine intervention - as the human race was now incapable of heaven because of original sin. That intervention occurred through the new Adam and Eve. The love of Joseph and Mary was surely more intense and perfect than that of any other couple in history. Because it was ordered to and empowered by their love of God (charity). Doing God's will is the highest possible love of all - the end of all true loves as Aquinas and CS Lewis point out. Love is only "love' when it ordered to charity. So yes, Mary and Joseph were "more married" than say the parents, of Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Sienna, who had (count 'em) 25 children.
Listening to Father Pine makes me realize, use and display your God-given talents, don't make yourself appear useless to be someone's punching bag, redeem yourself. Strike a balance between egoism and humility. Too many narcissists think any attention you receive is a slight on them, just makes them look infantile and immature. People with high levels of narcissism have infected the church and are a great evil, separate the wheat from the chaff. It's almost always people in positions of influence and/or authority who abuse their platform.
Who wants this 2009 2010 ... Ledger?
Thx i understand annulment
Hello from Pennsyltucky
Uniontown or Washington? : )
My roots are Venango County and the hamlets outside Pittsburgh, eg. Tarentum, Carrick, Hays, Allegheny, & Monongahela Valleys.
Father, does that mean someone who is handicapped/ paralyzed from the waist down cannot marry into the catholic Church ?
No. My Aunt Nancy is married.
The objective of marriage is to be the domestic church and be open to life and God's Providence & Sovereignty.
@@AJKPenguin Thank you, God bless you and your family....
Impotence is an impediment to marriage.
Canon 1084:
§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript ofcanon 1098.
@@AJKPenguin Marriage is geared towards procreation and union. So impotence makes marriage impossible.
@@Shlomayo Thanks for the clarification...
If a husband and wife with children divorce and receive an annulment, are the children then considered illegitimate?
Technically the children were born out of wedlock. But the Church doesn’t use the term “illegitimate children.” Governments may, but the Church doesn’t specify (there’s really no need for a child to be labeled legitimate or illegitimate.)
Thank you!
How does this fit with Josephite marriages?
I was just about to ask that
It doesnt...catholics indoctrinate
The *only* case I can think of that'd be a valid annullment is in the television show 'Arrow' where not only *one* but *both* members of the "marriage" were coerced into the marriage; but even that would require that at least one, if not *both* members of the "happy couple" were to bring this matter to the "Church tribunals" for a hearing in that case.
Yet my argument stands, in this regard: if one, or Heaven forbid, *both* husband and wife are threatened to coerce their consent to the marriage: IT IS NOT A MARRIGE, but something truly horrid, an act of marital rape of *both* of the couple, by the one, or ones, who coerced them.
"Arrow" is a fantasy story, basically the hero's a "Robin Hood" of sorts; but the element of coerced marriage is what I was drawing on; yet if we even permit sex to be an element of focus; we risk being intoxicated on lust- and to enter into a marriage in that mindset is far worse: it is basically something of Hell's culture, as Tobit makes abundantly clear; besides, why even permit ourselves to allow our focus to be on physical intimacy? Now granted, it is to be within set bounderies, including freely consented to by both husband and wife, and most importantly, open to children- as in the end, the primary and sole focus of marriage is the continuation of the species, the spouses are secondary in that regard; yet vital for the proper character formation of the children. The essence of this is a defense of propriety and virtue; not even allowing the kind of forbidden lust to enter into our minds; lest we as individuals even end up, in the end, sexually abusing our spouses as He so rightly condemned as a doorway to Hell; and "marital rape" really does cut it for "Hell" as a category in the extreme.
💍
Not the most flattering frame of Fr. Gregory for the thumbnail.
Virginity for the unmarried is a beautiful thing and precious in the sight of God. Likewise, sex in the bonds of a loving marriage is beautiful and precious to God.
Please consider the words of your King:
*"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:2-5*
Luke 2:48
Quite the story. 🤔
If two Catholics have a proper Catholic ceremony but are in a country that doesn't recognize religious marriage as legally binding, will they be living in sin if they do not go to the Tribunal for a civil marriage? If the country recognizes "domestic partnerships (hetero)" as having legal status does that matter?
the marriage in the eyes of the church is what matters with regards to sin, not the government
Im not sure of the exact context, but couples in america still file for a civil marriage after their wedding, so getting a catholic wedding then going through the legal process to have a marriage civilly recognized is ok(assuming the civil marriage wouldnt require you to renounce something of your faith)
@bobthebuildest6828 no, in the US the religious service is recognised as legally binding. It doesn't require a separate one. I was married there. It has to be registered but not 2 ceremonies
@@tinalettieri yeah thats what i meant they file with the government after the ceremony, but the church only needs ti be a witness its common(even if not ideal) for catholic/protestant couples to say vows in front of a priest in private then have a ceremony elsewhere to celebrate the wedding that has technically already happened
apply this here they do votes in front of a priest and they are not married in the eyes of the church and can do whatever formality the government wants as long as they know the marriage has already begun and the "ceremony" is a formality for the government
@@gardenwithtea Yes, many countries are like that. Italy used to be and is for non-Catholics but I understand that now, if two Catholics want to marry there, the Church ceremony is enough. France is an example of needing both. My qustion was from the Church's point of view. I live in Israel. The only legal marriages performed here are Orthodox Jewish or if two Muslims marry. I'm not even sure Catholic marriages between two catholics are recognized. But if it's a mixed marriage, or if anyone doesn't want an Orthodox rabbinic wedding, they have to go abroad and the foreign marriage will be recognized. Israel has domestic partnership which provides some legal protections. So I was asking if I who returned to the Catholic Church but am registered as a Jewish citizen is blessed with a Catholic husband (I'm a widow) If we had a Catholic ceremony in the Church, would that be sufficient for the Church to say we are not living in sin, or does Catholic Doctrine mandate we follow the civil law of our country? Since Domestic partnerships are permitted legally, even for heterosexual couples, is that sufficient? I am well past childbearing but I am praying fervently for a devout Catholic husband. I am all alone and would love to have someone to share my last years with.
Jesus would never have picked them to be His parents unless He knew they were behaving themselves; so of course their marriage was valid- always was in fact, and that comes out of HIs teachings that shape the Catholic teaching on marriage; any other stance is preposterous in the extreme.
Evening star says +248 kalu kalabah
I applaud your efforts to clarify Catholic theology. Nevertheless Catholic theology remains like a big beautiful chunk of Swiss cheese
I was raised Catholic. Drifted away from practice in my teens as my mom stopped going, but never left the Church. Married at 18 to someone who wasn’t Catholic. Divorced at 30. Declaration of non-Canonical form says it wasn’t a true marriage.
After being married (19) became a Protestant and at 29 had a crisis of faith concerning Protestant Theology which I found problematic.
Reading Newman and Chesterton led back to the Catholic Church, which led me to look into the non-Canonical declaration that I mentioned above.
Marian doctrines always give me trouble. I don’t see why these things about her perpetual virginity are necessary and to call them infallible Church doctrine is tough because I think she and Joseph probably had sex in their marriage and the Church is likely wrong about this.
Not a good Catholic or a Catholic at all to say this for some people. Yes, I know. Just tired of lying and going along with things that don’t make sense. And it doesn’t diminish Mary if she had sex with Joseph.
I don’t really have anywhere else to go because the Church is right about more important things than this, so I wish they’d never said this was doctrine.
Try Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary". Completely changed my thinking on the topic.
I had similar problems with the perpetual virginity dogma, but I've reconciled it in the following way revolving around St. Mary's special role in our salvation. She is the only human who is simultaneously daughter to God the Father, mother to God the Son, and spouse to God the Holy Ghost. She mystically encapsulates the three roles of woman, but to God. That's all amazing and sacred but at the same time she was a creature who lived among men and under the imperfect justice of men. Therefore she needed an Earthly guardian-husband or she and the child Jesus would have perished. St. Joseph, the greatest of nobles, fulfilled this role. As a man, I try to imagine ever being intimate with my wife, if I knew she was impregnated by God. I can't. This would mean my wife was actually His and, as a man in service to God, I don't get to share that woman sexually with Him. That might have been tough for St. Joseph but we know he too was in communication with God and angels, so it's reasonable to expect he embraced this holy mission of his with grace, honor, and humility.
Your journey is touching to me. I'm sorry for the turmoil. I'm a Lutheran turning to Catholicism, I really love all the Mariology I've been learning. You raise a small pet peeve of mine, the objection that "they *probably* had sex." I feels presumptuous to me. Historically speaking The Early Church spoke very highly of Mary, to a surprising degree. The idea of Mary being a lifelong virgin is not only an impressive and holy gift, but what the Earliest Christians understood her to be.
Moreover, there are actually Biblical clues that Mary had no other children of her own. The Greek word used to refer to "the brothers of Jesus" actually meant "not of the same womb, and my personal favorite example is the Book of John's telling of the Crucifixion. Jesus says "Behold your son, behold your mother," and from that time forward John took Mary into his own home to care for her. Why would a Disciple need to take care of Mary if she had other children there for her? It seems like the obvious answer to me is that she didn't.
You're right that Mary and Joseph having marital sex wouldn't be "wrong" as marital sex is a holy thing, but the more I look into it, it simply seems like they just never did.
@@johnmaelstrom3856That's an incredibly good point!! It would not have been proper for Joseph to have sex with a woman who had already concieved God's son.
By far the strangest thing is that ancient Christians, even faced with heresies denying the humanity of Christ, adamantly did not want Him thought of as being birthed in a natural fashion. I would have thought it was obvious that Christians should attest that He grew to be the full size of a newborn in His mother and was PHYSICALLY BORN and emerged in the way all people are born. But when you look at what men were historically thinking you find both that they considered giving birth really disgusting, defiling and animal and the thought of the "manipulations" of the female body in natural birth and becoming unclean (which was the case in Roman as well as Jewish culture) incongruent with extreme veneration of Mary. It seems to have been considered by great churchmen that Jesus must have passed out of Mary's body in some type of subtle and non-messy manner. The first explicit idea of the physical virginity of Mary during Jesus' birth is in the fictionalized Gospel harmony "the Protoevangelion of James" which wasn't factual nor technically accepted by the Church but widely influenced opinion.
I was reading I think about Pentecost in The Book of Acts, can't remember the exact verse. I was reading The Jerusalem Bible in Italian and it specifically said "Maria ed i fratelli di Gesù., ed i11discepoli" "Mary and the BROTHERS of Jesus, and the 11 Disciples." I could be wrong about which passage but I am certain about the actual sentence. It clearly separates "brothers" from "Disciples." Why would Mary have to remain "ever virgin" AFTER Jesus was born?
Is your question why she had to be a virgin after jesus was born ? I think catholic dogma holds that God wished for her remain pure and consecrated in a way that was befitting of his daughter (of God the father , mother(of God the son) and spouse( of the Holy Spirit ) . She is God 's finest creature . (not counting Jesus who was both human and divine )
@@emagenie yeah, I know the doctrinal answer. I'm questioning the translation.
I've heard arguements those were actually cousins, for when Jesus spoke of them in the Greek translation the word literally meant "not of the same womb."
Also, the Book of John shows Jesus giving Mary over to John while on the cross. "Behold your mother, behold your son." Why would a Disciple need to take care of Jesus' mother it she had other children to care for her?
@sandstorm7768 John could have been a brother but, good point.
So if a woman is past menopause or has had a hysterectomy does this mean that she should not get married because she cannot procreate?
No - infertility doesn’t hinder a marriage, impotency does. You have to be able to engage in the marital act at the time of getting married, even if you’re infertile for some reason.
@@littledrummergirl_19where does it say that in the Bible? Catholic priests lie about alot...been doing it for years
@@lettersandwordsandstuffs you’re asking the wrong question - Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura so we have different premises for the argument. This will be pointless.
@@littledrummergirl_19 I don't believe in Sola scriptora either
life and death belongs to god. marriage belongs to god. if abraham killed isaac, it would not be sin because of gods authority. when israel plundered egypt it was not sin because they obeyed god. when hosea married gomer who could not be faithful, it was not sin because he obeyed god, the author of every law and nature and power. god is not under the law and does not need to use the law in order to accomplish the purposes of HIs law
Yes, absolutely they always had a valid marriage from the get-go! It is the married *couple* that by consenting to the marriage make the marriage valid; hence a lie, or any form of trickery and/or forced consent in entering into a marriage is what turns it into really Hell itself- and this agenda of what makes a marriage valid comes straight out of Christ's regulations for a valid marriage. Just because the "happy couple" aren't "bedding" oneanother doesn't dispute the marriage, for the purpose of a marriage is not so much "sex" as it is genuine really proper caring, husband and wife for oneanother. Let me remind you of the warning that the alien we call the archangel Raphael mentioned in the book of Tobit to the young man about entering into a marriage when "high on lust" as I'd put it; he/it said that such a union really is made in Hell itself, as such a "union" really does get extremely abusive. What it said is that the devil gains a lot of power over such people; well: why in the world would frankly an antisexual being take delight in a "matrimony" based primarily on lust *outside* of it leading to mutual marital abuse? None whatsoever; and that sociopathic seraphim we call "Lucifer" aka "the devil" really takes the sickest delight in such a misconduct being engaged in.
then what do you think of the Orthodox who say otherwise?
@@josephology3290 They say otherwise on what detail, pray tell? Be specific for crying out loud.
@@chissstardestroyer specially, the Eastern Orthodox say the opposite (otherwise) than the title of this video says; that is, the Eastern Orthodox (at least the Greek Orthodox) says they did NOT have a valid marriage. Rather, they say they were NEVER married. They’d say they were ONLY betrothed. They say since they didn’t consummate the marriage it was not a true marriage. But only a betrothal where Joseph was like the grandfatherly GUARDIAN only and NOT her husband. That’s why they call him St Joseph the Betrothed. Whereas, we call him St Joseph, Husband of Mary. Big difference. Check out what JPII said on this point in Redemptoris Custos and also his Wednesday Audience. He flat out says Joseph was a virgin and not an elderly man and that they had a TRUE marriage and we need to uphold this fact.
@@josephology3290 Then their stance diametrically contradicts the gospels; so thus we know that all orthodox faiths are heretical. And a betrothal *was* validly a marriage; so thus we also know their stance to be heretical; as it contradicts reality about these events.
@@josephology3290 For instance, if their faiths' teachings were accurate, which they clearly aren't, then what Mary and Joseph would've been doing is *cohabitating* and thus they'd be involved in deeply mortally sinful misconduct; since both the gospels and Sacred Tradition each confirm that Mary never sinned, it is therefore clear that she did have a valid marriage to Joseph, and thus a full and complete one, so thus sex is not needed to complete the marriage- elsewise they'd have lived in deeply mortally sinful lifestyles, and thus Christ would be a liar.
Since the last of those is impossible, it therefore is necessary for us to remove all claims of sex being needed for a valid marriage.
First
Joyce aheroe cursed me urine bernicebturned into a snake village school reserved taken white thornless rose or quiet beauty who gave me friends I don’t mingle with fornicators I work out my salvation with fear and trembling aunty kedzitor telling me to grind pepper prayers cancel not catholic 5000 given coins of grandma bcos boardmaths something on examination seat ❤❤
The code of canon law cannot be anything but heretical; as it would contradict sacred tradition, as you so validly observe, Fr. then we're obliged to declare the code of canon law to be heretical in all of its stances, and to send the authors of it to Hell where they belong, yes, including canonized saints who penned it- as they called their God's mother a vile woman by penning that preposterous statement that calls His own parents pure evil.
the bearded boy doesn't understand the difference between a rite and a sui iurus church...
Send me an angel.
Scorpions song coming up:
ruclips.net/video/K9RKlz1qpQY/видео.html
This is so much simpler as a Protestant! Mary was used by God in a very special way, but marriage is a temporal institution for humans in this life ("They will neither marry, nor be given in marriage. They will be like the angels in Heaven"). Mary's union with the Holy Spirit was not marriage.
But none of that is pertinent to the question at hand, I don't understand your point
@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal Did Mary and Joseph have a valid marriage? Yes, they did. After Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had other children.
@@christopherbaird4952Read carefully your Bible.
James brother of Jesus?
James is “brother” as a disciple or family ties of Jesus but not son of Mary the mother of Jesus. And there are two James.
James 1 (son of Cleophas also called Alphaeus Mk. 3:18)
John 19:25
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”
Matthew 27:56
“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.”
Mark 15:40
“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES the less and of Joses, and Salome;”
James 2 (son of Zebedee)
Matthew 20:20
“Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.”
Mark 3:17
“And JAMES the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:”
Mark 10:35
“And JAMES and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.”
So, not son of Mary nor blood brother of Jesus.
@@atgred they're different people.
The answer is no
Yes of course they were married. According to the Word this means they became "one flesh" ... they also had other children, and Jesus had brothers as it is written.
Stick to the Word!
If you want to stick to the Word you need to study the original languages and you need a better understanding of the cultural differences in which it was written.
The Bible wasn't written by English speaking protestants.
In the time and culture in which it was written, the word translated as "brother" did refer to brothers....but also to cousins.
It's not the slam dunk you're acting like it is
@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal I'm not looking for a slam dunk. Just the truth, which God has provided in His Word. And yes you need to examine the context and the original language.
The Greek word used is "adelphoi" which literally means "brother" "from the same womb." So that could not be any more clear. The Word is indeed illuminating!
And YES, that word "brother" can be used to mean "brethren" or "brother in Christ" , but this is why you need to look at context.
In BOTH PASSAGES where Jesus' brothers are talked about, the context is clear- Jesus is rebuking and correcting the elevation of His blood relatives (His mother and brothers) and pointing instead to His "true" brothers, which are His brothers in obedience to God.
If the word was used to mean "brethren" like fellow disciples, then it completely undermines the passage, the teaching Jesus is giving about the importance of obedience to God over being His blood relative.
If you are willing to humble your heart and read the Word with eyes to see what the Lord has spoken, He will reveal all things to you. Pray to the Holy Spirit and read the Word! Yes read the Greek too it supports my position 100%! Yes read the context of the surrounding passages they also support my position 100%!
@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal your argument about "adelphoi" (which literally means brother, from the same womb) being used to mean "cousin" is also erroneous.
Matthew knew the Greek word for "cousin" and so did the other NT writers. If they wanted to say cousin, they would have. But they specifically said "brother, from the same womb" and God does not make errors or typos.
For example, in Collassians 4:10, Barnabas' COUSIN Mark is referenced.
Guess what Greek word is used?
ἀνεψιὸς (anepsios) which means "cousin, sister's son"
NT writers knew the word for cousin. The word "brother" CAN be used to mean "brethren" as in "brother in Christ", but this will depend on the context. But the word adelphoi is NOT used for cousin. Instead the word for cousin is used, literally "sisters son" ... yes please go study the Word and the Greek and the context! All support the truth I am speaking to you!
May the Holy Spirit be with you!
James brother of Jesus?
James is “brother” as a disciple or family ties of Jesus but not son of Mary the mother of Jesus. And there are two James.
James 1 (son of Cleophas also called Alphaeus Mk. 3:18)
John 19:25
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”
Matthew 27:56
“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.”
Mark 15:40
“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary (Cleophas) the mother of JAMES the less and of Joses, and Salome;”
James 2 (son of Zebedee)
Matthew 20:20
“Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.”
Mark 3:17
“And JAMES the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:”
Mark 10:35
“And JAMES and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.”
So, not son of Mary nor blood brother of Jesus.
@atgred I'm not sure which James you are talking about, since that was a common name in those days and I think there were even multiple disciples by the name of James.
But I do know that it is written:
Mark 6:3-
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Matthew 13:55-
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Matthew 12:46-50
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”