A Marian conversation

I recently exchanged a series of emails with a commenter who frequents our comboxes, of the Roman persuasion. This commenter shall remain nameless unless they should choose to identify him/herself in the combox.

We got around to discussing the Marian dogmas. For the benefit of the reader, I'll post here all the relevant text. I will omit nothing relevant, so whenever a response lacks, well, a response to a point previously brought up, it's because no argument was given. My statements will be in green, and the commenter's in burgundy.

Rhology: It makes me shake my head, really. What, precisely, is so disgusting about the marital act to you?

Commenter: There isn't anything disgusting about the marital act or about the words "penis" or "vagina." That's what you people are asserting, but there's nothing improper about either of them. It shows a depraved mindset to consider them offensive. They're part of God's wonderful creation, and there is every propriety in people who are legitimately married using them for the procreative act in keeping with 1 Cor. 7 and Hebrews 13. Neither is there anything inappropriate with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:34, "And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit." This is just exactly what the Church teaches: Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, remained betrothed to him, but did not complete the marriage so she could remain holy in body and spirit, and so she could be totally devoted to Jesus' care and upbringing, so as to be "free from [worldly anxieties," but instead "anxious about the things of the Lord."

You make me shake my head.
---
Ah, so the angel's message to Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife"... is gone?

I'll confess - that's a new approach on me. You can have it.
---

In other words, do not fear to take her into your house, don't put her away quietly as you thought to do, because she'll be stoned under Mosaic law if you do...

I'll keep it, too. It's the true one.

---
Where is the "in other words" part? Where is it indicated in the text that the angel meant "do not fear to take her into your house" rather than "do not fear to take Mary as your wife"?

And is there a Magisterial, infallible interpretation of that passage somewhere? That's something I'd be interested in reading about. If you name one, don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.
---

No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists? Be that as it may, I would encourage you to investigate the full semantic range of paralambano in Matthew 1:20. There is no necessity to render it as meaning that Joseph has to literally "take" Mary in the consummatory sense. In fact, the metaphysical definition Strong's gives ("1. to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be, 2. not to reject, not to withhold obedience") makes perfect sense given the totality of circumstances.

Consider also Luke 1:26-38. If Mary (whom we both acknowledge was "betrothed" to Joseph) understands the natural order of conception (and she clearly does), why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive? She would, if your paradigm were correct, have understood this saying from the angel perfectly well: she would have marital relations with Joseph, who was to become her husband. But she knew this was not going to happen, which is why she asked the question. There isn't any reasonable alternative answer.

Furthermore, given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.

I would refer you also to Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras," c. 362, which was accepted and propounded by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, I believe. (It may have been Chalcedon, I'm working from memory.) Ecumenical Councils render the appelation "Ever Virgin" to Mary as well, and in the course of their dogmatic teaching. These councils were properly ratified by Popes, and there is thus no question as to their infallibility. By necessity, then, these and others are infallible interpretations in a negative sense concerning the sense of Matthew 1:20 you mentioned. It is simply not necessary for them to explicitly state the interpretation; just as if I make a statement "It has not rained all week long, there hasn't been a drop,"

I don't need to explicitly state, "And let me make myself clear: when the weatherman said 'don't forget your umbrella,' he was lying." The weatherman wasn't lying. And I don't need to explicitly "refute" him when the meaning doesn't require me to have taken his words as directly contradictory.

If you desire more about Magisterial pronouncements concerning Mary's perpetual virginity, I'm sure you can borrow a copy of Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. See pp 203-207 in Ott and all the references listed in the Symbolic Index ection VIII, i in Denzinger. Lateran Council, Popes, Saints (Augustine, Irenaeus, Ignatius, et al.), Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. all maintain it.

Another source equally authoritative for us is the Liturgy, of course. I don't expect you to understand or accept that, but if and when you begin to explore liturgics and the history of the Mass and so forth, you'll get a better grasp on why I mention it.

---
-paralambano

I was referring to the "as your wife" part of the verse, not the "take".

-No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists?

Is this a concession that the Bible doesn't teach this doctrine?

-why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive?

Um, because she was a virgin, not yet married?

-given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.

1) This must be more of this invisible Magisterium Bible interpretation again. Where does He entrust her to John's care? He says "behold your mother; behold your son". Not "behold your mother, forget the one who actually bore you, OK? Behold your son, 'cause those other guys are a bunch of louts".
2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?

-Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras,"

And you know it's infallible, how? Is the proclamation that declared it infallible itself infallible? How do you know? Where was it said, infallibly, that Councils are infallible when ratified by the Pope? Do you know that infallibly?

-Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. Liturgy

I've been down that road before. None of those are infallible. I wouldn't want to be led astray by individual, private interpretation, you know.
---

"As your wife" is a function of "take; hence, you need to articulate how it is that we must render "paralambano" as "take in the consummatory fashion." You cannot do so.

"Um, etc."

But, as I pointed out, your position is that she knew she wasn't going to remain a virgin. The angel didn't say to her "You've already conceived." He said "you will conceive." She, according to your position, would have clearly understood that to mean in the eventual course of her marriage to Joseph. Think about it.

"Where does He entrust her to John's care?"

'And from that day he took her into his own home.' Read a little, man.

"2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?"

The Apostles do. They were, um, Apostles. We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them. You're grasping at straws, Alan.

"And you know it's infallible, how?"

Because it was propounded by the E.C., as I said. And we know the E.C.s are infallible because they are following the Scriptural precedent in Acts 15, and we know they have "all authority" as Apostolic successors from Titus 2, etc. I'll email you when my series is complete and give you the URL. You would do well to read a lot of my prefatory posts concerning epistemology and certainty, as well. In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.

---
-"As your wife" is a function of "take

"Take" can be used in a variety of forms. "As your wife" is the modifier.
So what you're saying is that Joseph did NOT take her as his wife. He disobeyed the angel.

-'And from that day he took her into his own home.'

And John represents the church here, how?
And you're sure that the brothers of the Lord were believers at this time, how?
And the command to John transmits to you today, how?


-We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them.

That's not what I asked.

Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?

-And we know the E.C.s are infallible because they are following the Scriptural precedent in Acts 15, and we know they have "all authority" as Apostolic successors from Titus 2, etc.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up the horses.
Sounds like you're citing private, individual interpretation of Acts 15 and Titus 2.
Where is the council at Jerusalem from Acts 15 defined infallibly as infallible in an infallible proclamation of the Roman church? How do you know it's infallible?

Ditto for the Titus 2. I'm going to need you to cite all that stuff whenever you want to quote Scr, OK?

-In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.

It would behoove your position, then, to make sense and not retreat into infinite regress at the slightest provocation. Solve that first before you lecture me. After all, it's what the Church has bound upon you - you might as well bear the burden with intellectual honesty. Or convert.
---
Joseph took her "as his wife," as in, "as if she was his wife." I've already said this. He didn't disobey the angel, he obeyed perfectly. He did so in order to protect the Lord in the womb and Mary from what would have been correctly perceived as a violation of the Law.
---
Where does the text say "as if she was his wife"?

Or is that, once again, a private fallible interpretation from you?

It ended there, with the commenter declining to respond. Of course, it's open to continuation anytime. Hopefully this conversation has been of benefit. It was to me.