Author Topic: Novus Ordos believe St. Joseph had children! (Read 1600 times)

Sigismund · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2014, 06:42:45 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Myth and Ladislaus,

That's interesting, I had never heard about that.

But, I would highly suspect that in this case, it has NOTHING to do with that old tradition/legend.

Just wait, I will ask around.

Those are its origins. I heard someone on "Catholic Answers" spouting on about this. It's a false opinion that contradicts Scripture. Mary, wife of Cleopas, was the mother of James. Consequently, the same James who was the "brother" of Jesus is explained to be the son of Cleopas and not St. Joseph.

I am a firm believer in the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph. I also happen to believe that St. Joseph has been assumed into heaven.

You can certainly believe in it, but it is not a dogma, and people who accept the witness fo fathers of the Church to the contrary are not heretics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2014, 06:49:20 PM »

Here's a good article on the Assumption of St. Joseph:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0315-st-joseph.htm

Just one of many citations in the article:

Quote from: St. Francis de Sales

St. Joseph is, therefore, in Heaven in body and in soul; of that there is no doubt.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** June 17, 2014, 06:50:41 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

You can certainly believe in it, but it is not a dogma, and people who accept the witness fo fathers of the Church to the contrary are not heretics.

Please point out where I claimed that the contrary opinion was heretical. I just think that it's wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2014, 07:02:55 PM »

Just to give a slightly longer citation:

Quote from: Remnant

It would be long to quote all the concurrent opinions of the learned and the holy, but we cannot omit that of Suarez. After saying much in praise of St. Joseph, he adds that, according to the sufficiently received belief, it was probable that he was reigning gloriously with Christ in Heaven, both in body and in soul. If Suarez could call this a sufficiently received belief more than two hundred years ago, what would he have styled it at the present time, when it is held well-nigh universally?

Finally, we must content ourselves with citing the opinions of two saints of these later ages, St. Francis de Sales and St. Leonard of Port Maurice. The former, after speaking at some length of the resurrection of Joseph, thus concludes: "St. Joseph is, therefore, in Heaven in body and in soul; of that there is no doubt". And St. Leonard, in pronouncing his eulogium, exclaims that Joseph was transported in body and in soul to the empyrean by a particular privilege, which appears to be indicated in the Proverbs, where it is said that all of her (Mary's) household are "clothed with double garments," which interpreters have understood as signifying the twofold glorification of soul and body.

2Vermont · « **Reply #19 on:** June 17, 2014, 07:06:48 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Myth and Ladislaus,

That's interesting, I had never heard about that.

But, I would highly suspect that in this case, it has NOTHING to do with that old tradition/legend.

Just wait, I will ask around.

Those are its origins. I heard someone on "Catholic Answers" spouting on about this. It's a false opinion that contradicts Scripture. Mary, wife of Cleopas, was the mother of James. Consequently, the same James who was the "brother" of Jesus is explained to be the son of Cleopas and not St. Joseph.

I am a firm believer in the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph. I also happen to believe that St. Joseph has been assumed into heaven.

You can certainly believe in it, but it is not a dogma, and people who accept the witness fo fathers of the Church to the contrary are not heretics.

Yes.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2014, 07:52:47 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Eh, not sure what the big deal here is. According to tradition he was an older man so it seems to me that he very well could have been married and widowed previously. I'm not sure why this would be scandalous/heretical to the Faith.

It would be one thing to say he had children BEFORE and THEN became a widower, but as I said, Ithink these people bbelieve he had children WHILE he was married to the Blessed Virgin.