It is currently Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:34 pm

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 Cajetan on the Marriage between Our Lady and St. Joseph 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Cajetan on the Marriage between Our Lady and St. Joseph
The following is a translation of Cajetan´s text Julian provided us here viewtopic.php?p=10397#p10397

I translated it and Julian was kind enough to review it and corrected some mistakes.

I. In corpore two things are done: first it is declared in common how (unde: literally “whence”) and in which ways it is said that matrimony is true; in second place it is responded in particular about this union.
Regarding the first point it is said that the union is true because of its perfection. And since perfection is twofold: first and second, then union is said to be true according to its first or second perfection. The text declares which is the first perfection of the union, namely the form and which is the form and the second perfection that is twofold: generation and education. In addition, the means for this are declared.
The second point is answered with three conclusions or, if you will, with a unique conclusion made up of three parts. The marriage between the Mother of God and St. Joseph was a true marriage with regard to the first perfection and true also regarding the second perfection if it refers to education but not if it is referred to generation. The first part is proven with an argument of reason: since both consented in the conjugal union, which may be proven with the authority of the Angel in the Gospel, as it was exposed by St Augustine. With regard to the third, St. Ambrose is quoted and with regard to both the second one and all the parts together it is quoted, finally, St. Augustine.

II. In the response to the third objection it should be kept in mind that, carefully examining the Gospel, the solemn nuptials were not yet celebrated when Our Lady conceived of the Holy Ghost. Since you can see there not only that the Blessed Virgin knew not man but also that she was not yet accepted by Joseph, her spouse, since it is said that she is spouse but it is denied not only that she knows any man but also that she has been accepted, and after the admonition of the Angel it is affirmed that she was received but that she remains without knowing any man. From this, it follows that her reception was the nuptial solemnity by which the spouses became simpliciter and absolutely, domestic spouses. There is no controversy on this point.

But it is disputed whether the Blessed Virgin was retained (retenta) secundum quid at the house of St. Joseph before this reception.
In the same way it is doubted of which traductione the Evangelist (Mt 1, 19) speaks about, whether it is about the traductione simpliciter to the domestic consortium, which has its place along with nuptial solemnity or about the traductione to the infamy of judgment. The Evangelist says, in effect, two things: that he nolebat eam traducere and that he voluit occulte dimittere eam. In fact it is true that the solution he thought of consisting in putting her away secretly may be interpreted in both ways; namely that a just man can deny both translations (i.e., denying her the traductione simpliciter but also not proceed to the [i]traductione to the infamy of judgement - comment[/i]). But since it is more proper of the just man not to communicate the faults of others and that the Angel, when he talked to him, showed the fear of Joseph receiving Mary, his wife, he orders him to receive her since she conceived of the Holy Ghost. It can be seen clearly that Joseph feared to expose the sin of adultery and so he wanted to dismiss her privately. And since he knew by the Angel that she conceived not of adultery but of the Holy Ghost, he received her, as the Evangelist adds. And although this is certain, it still remains the doubt whether besides the thought of dismissing her privately he also had in mind explicitly not to deliver her into infamy, in such a way that this be the meaning of the Evangelist when he says: nollet eam traducere.

III. Regarding the first doubt (“But it is disputed whether the Blessed Virgin was retained (retenta) secundum quid at the house of St. Joseph before this reception”) reason demands that whether the Blessed Virgin had lived at her parental house, at her husband’s, in both of them, or in another one, the fact of living together, according the use of that time, was so licit that it could have taken place, if they would have wanted so, the consummation of the marriage, since otherwise her pregnancy would have been a scandal (alioquin, non fuisset sufficienter provisum famae Beatae Virginis, cum inventa est in utero habens). I said “in another one” since it is not irrational to think that after the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin went along with St. Joseph, from Nazareth to Galilee, into the hill country into a city of Judah, in order to visit Elizabeth and that after coming back into Nazareth, when she was pregnant for three months already (since she stood at St Elizabeth’s about three months) she was found with child. And some thought she was pregnant of Joseph with whom she spent three months in the house of Zacharias. And Joseph himself, seeing her pregnant and knowing it was not his child, cum esset iustus, et nollet eam traducere, whether into the infamy, whether simply to the domestic consortium, whether to both of them, which seems more likely, voluit occulte dimittere eam.

And this interpretation is more according to the Gospel since Luke expressly adds that the Blessed Virgin, after the time she spent at Elizabeth’s, reversa est in domum suam, and he didn´t say she came back to the house of her husband. In this way he testifies she inhabited at her house and when Luke says that she conceived, he doesn´t mention her husband´s house. There is no mention either in the Scriptures about retaining the wife in the house of the husband. It should be said therefore that she conceived at her own house, but without being guilty of infamy since she spent three months with St. Joseph at the house of St. Elizabeth. And we don´t say this without a reason but rather we take this from the Gospel saying the Blessed Virgin, still married with Joseph, went from Nazareth to Bethlehem when Cesar Augustus published the edict. For the same reason the same wife should have gone to the mountains along with St. Joseph.

When the Author (St. Thomas) says in the text that it is more according to the Gospel that the Blessed Virgin dwelt in the house of her husband, it should be understood related to the extreme opinion, that neither simpliciter nor secundum quid she dwelt with him (this opinion does not provide sufficiently the good name of Our Lady) and not comparing it with the middle opinion (that the author doesn´t deal with) that is more in accordance with the Gospel than the two extreme opinions, as it is evident for what was said.

"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy

Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:07 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Cajetan on the Marriage between Our Lady and St. Joseph
Could anyone elaborate on this Cajetan quote and the general issue of the timing of Our Blessed Mother's marriage? I believe, from all I've seen, that Our Lady was married, not just engaged, when the Annunciation took place, since this seems commonly held to be true by the Church. I have a few questions I'm hoping someone can help me with.

1. Is Cajetan truly saying here that he believes they were only engaged when the Annunciation took place? It is a little confusing. Saying that "...the solemn nuptials were not yet celebrated when Our Lady conceived of the Holy Ghost" seems to imply that he believes they were only engaged, but the rest gets a little confusing and makes me unsure about that statement. Can anyone clarify this?

2. Is anyone aware of other theologians prior to the 20th century that taught that Our Lady was only engaged when the Annunciation took place?

3. What level of assent is required for the teaching that Our Lady was married when the Annuciation took place? Is this proposition one of faith and morals? Is the opposite proposition, that Our Lady was only engaged when the Annunciation took place, a heretical one?

Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:58 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4337
New post Re: Cajetan on the Marriage between Our Lady and St. Joseph
Here's a discussion of this, Joe: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1311

In Christ our King.

Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:54 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.