Was jesus married?

[Calm]

What do you think of this video?

https://catholic-link.org/theology-body-sex-sin/
 

The commentary seems in line. 

[Calm]

Perhaps this will help defuse the stereotype:

Quote

Catholics have more sex and better sex than Protestants and Jews.

And they don't even feel guilty about it

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-11-24-1994328176-story.html

[Calm]

Lot of inaccurate stereotypes out there. Nowadays it seems like if teaching sex is to be used in marriage only, many assume there is also a belief that sex is ‘dirty’ or if not a sin, something close to it. 
 

Even the Puritans didn’t think that way:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/2016/10/18/puritans-and-sex-myth/
 

I think it is more modern humans that have hang ups about sex than religion. 

[The Nehor]

I doubt Jesus was polygamous, at least in mortality. Not due to any idea of how Jesus should live but due to the way his followers dealt with polygamy. Going to a hard monogamy stance when the founder was polygamous would seem to be a hard turn. Judaism was turning away from polygamy. It was illegal in most of the Roman Empire and Jews were only allowed to practice it in their own province. It is hard to tell how prevalent the practice was as we have almost no family records from the area. The sect at Qumran condemned polygamy as one of the great sins of mainstream Judaism.

One of the early problems in the Christian church based on Paul’s letter was all the widows. Without polygamy or mistresses they had to form charitable giving drives and the like.

 

Note I am in no way trying to suggest that the Romans and the rest of the Empire were sexually monogamous. Taking mistresses, liaisons with slaves, pederasty (in Greece), and the like. They were big on monogamy but only the marriage part.

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lot of inaccurate stereotypes out there. Nowadays it seems like if teaching sex is to be used in marriage only, many assume there is also a belief that sex is ‘dirty’ or if not a sin, something close to it. 
 

Even the Puritans didn’t think that way:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/2016/10/18/puritans-and-sex-myth/
 

I think it is more modern humans that have hang ups about sex than religion. 

Clearly, I wasn't saying that Catholics believe that sex is "dirty" for Catholics at large within marriage. I was talking about beliefs about marriage and clergy. As @MiserereNobis put it, those who take vows of celibacy "are sacrificing something good for something greater." There is a lot of neo-Platonic baggage throughout the centuries leading to underlying views of "physical = evil; spirit = good," and this led to practices such as asceticism, self-torture, affliction of the flesh, etc. And, it informs the view that celibacy is a higher and "greater" way to serve than parenthood --- with the highest of all being Jesus, of course. 

Even when churches officially (creedally) believe in the universal resurrection, most of their parishioners and many of their clergy believe that we will be spirits in heaven. I even had a Catholic priest in Quedlinburg, East Germany tell us that Jesus did not eat fish and honeycomb, and his disciples didn't feel his hands and feet like it says in the Bible. His disciples missed him, and as they remembered him being with them, it was "as if" he were there with them, and "as if" he at with them, and "as if" they felt his hands and feet., he said. He had begun mocking us as we passed him and two nuns, singling out our belief that God has a body. I responded that Jesus had a body after the resurrection, and he denied that, and I brought up the hands/feet and fish/honeycomb incidents, and he denied that they were in the Bible (one of the nuns shook her head silently when he said this). We put our backpacks down and pulled out our Einheitsübersestzungen (the version the Church uses in Germany is the Catholic Bible) and showed him, and that's when he gave his "as if" theory. 

I told my companion that he was an outlier priest, and not representative of Catholic doctrine (he was the only priest I met who went after us before we had said a word), but it illustrates what many people (Catholic or not) associate with bodies in general as being incompatible with heaven. One of the controv

@Calm, you asked why the belief that Jesus was married and had children would be abhorrent to Catholics. I'll let Catholics answer whether or not I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am. They may feel that abhorrent is too strong of a word, but I think it would be unthinkable within Catholicism that Jesus was married. It's certainly abhorrent to conservative Protestants. Some Mormons also think that it would somehow make it so that Jesus would have been unworthy to bring about the atonement if he had children (sex with a wife). They are much more comfortable with a celibate Savior. 

[longview]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In Matthew it was Mary Magdalene AND the other Mary first met by the angel who then BOTH saw him on their way to tell the Apostles.

In Mark they both saw the angel but Mary Magdalene saw the resurrected Jesus.

In Luke multiple women including both Marys and Joanna met 2 angels.  But the Apostles saw him first.

In John it was Mary Magdalene alone with two angels then Jesus.

This caused me to ask why was it urgent for the women to hurry (at dawn after Saturday Sabbath) to Jesus' Tomb?  Was the anointing and spicing prescribed in the Mosaic Law?  Was it normally done by the surviving wife (wives) and possibly children and family?

I searched but only could find this - - -

Quote

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ancient-burial-practices

"The New Testament sheds some light on Jewish burial practices of the first century C.E. Jesus' disciples took his body, bought a great quantity of myrrh and aloes, "and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury" (John 19:40). There was a delay in completing the preparation of the body for burial because of the Sabbath (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56). Luke (7:11–17) gives a vivid picture of the simple funeral of the poor; the body of a young man of Nain is borne out of the city on a pallet, clothed but without coffin, followed by the weeping mother and "much people of the city."

Maybe @Robert F. Smith and other scholars can weigh in on the questions?  Did Mary and Martha do the same for Lazarus when he was first buried?

[MiserereNobis]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even when churches officially (creedally) believe in the universal resurrection, most of their parishioners and many of their clergy believe that we will be spirits in heaven. I even had a Catholic priest in Quedlinburg, East Germany tell us that Jesus did not eat fish and honeycomb, and his disciples didn't feel his hands and feet like it says in the Bible. His disciples missed him, and as they remembered him being with them, it was "as if" he were there with them, and "as if" he at with them, and "as if" they felt his hands and feet., he said. He had begun mocking us as we passed him and two nuns, singling out our belief that God has a body. I responded that Jesus had a body after the resurrection, and he denied that, and I brought up the hands/feet and fish/honeycomb incidents, and he denied that they were in the Bible (one of the nuns shook her head silently when he said this). We put our backpacks down and pulled out our Einheitsübersestzungen (the version the Church uses in Germany is the Catholic Bible) and showed him, and that's when he gave his "as if" theory.

What a terrible priest, teaching heresy. From the catechism, bold mind:

Quote

643 Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact.

Further on:

Quote

644 ... Therefore the hypothesis that the Resurrection was produced by the apostles' faith (or credulity) will not hold up. 

And still further on, bold mine:

Quote

645 By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his Passion.

But then again, the Germanic Catholic world tends to have problems (Luther, anyone?). Today it's the German priests and bishops who tend to lead the charge in promoting modern heresies and the undermining of traditional Catholicism.

 

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

@Calm, you asked why the belief that Jesus was married and had children would be abhorrent to Catholics. I'll let Catholics answer whether or not I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am. They may feel that abhorrent is too strong of a word, but I think it would be unthinkable within Catholicism that Jesus was married. It's certainly abhorrent to conservative Protestants. Some Mormons also think that it would somehow make it so that Jesus would have been unworthy to bring about the atonement if he had children (sex with a wife). They are much more comfortable with a celibate Savior. 

I'm a convert to Christianity whose path was: atheism -> psychedelic spirituality ->Catholicism, which means that I don't really have the cultural views of Christianity or Catholicism. Culturally, it may very well feel abhorrent to some people. The teachings I've encountered about the life of Christ do not say such things, though, and sometimes one's feelings show more about one's own biases than the actual teachings of the religion.

Sexuality is NOT abhorrent in Catholicism. Christ's celibacy is not a denunciation of marriage. Again, matrimony is a sacrament of the Church, which means that it is good and brings about God's grace! From the catechism:

Quote

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."

Sounds pretty good to me, and I imagine LDS would agree with this Catholic view.

I think where LDS and Catholics differ in their views of marriage is whether or not it is necessary for salvation/exaltation. From my understanding of your doctrine, it is necessary for the highest levels of heaven, which, to me, seems to indicate that Christ must be married at some point. For Catholicism, marriage is not necessary, so there was no need for Christ to be married.

So, it's not necessary for Him, but does that mean He couldn't/didn't?

My understanding is that He devoted Himself fully 100% to His Father and the Kingdom of Heaven, and to His bride, the Church (notice that marriage is used as the metaphor there). If Christ were married, He would not be able to do this, as He would also have to be devoted to His family. He would either neglect the kingdom or His family to some degree. It would be a polygamous marriage (married to a wife AND married to the Church), and the reasons the Catholic Church rejects polygamy would apply:

Quote

1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection." Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

What a terrible priest, teaching heresy. From the catechism, bold mind:

Quote

643 Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact.

Further on:

Quote

644 ... Therefore the hypothesis that the Resurrection was produced by the apostles' faith (or credulity) will not hold up. 

And still further on, bold mine:

Quote

645 By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his Passion.

This is an interesting contrast to the discussion made in a closed thread from awhile back between @3DOP and @MiserereNobis and myself and @Calm - - - see page 3 and 4 of

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by longview

[The Nehor]

The whole “matter is evil” thing seems baked into our beings. It is easy to blame Plato or Catholics but you find the same thing in many pagan and eastern beliefs.

My private suspicion is that it has more to do with veiled memories of spiritual purity before and our only experience being physical has been while we were fallen. Who wouldn’t on some level think matter is the problem?

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, longview said:

This is an interesting contrast to the discussion made in a closed thread from awhile back between @3DOP and @MiserereNobis and myself and @Calm - - - see page 3 and 4 of

 

I'm having a hard time seeing the connection. The post you linked to is about God the Father having or not having a body. My post was about the physical resurrection of Christ. What do you see as the "contrast"? One can believe that God the Father does not have a body and also believe that Christ was physically resurrected -- there is no contradiction there.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

What a terrible priest, teaching heresy. From the catechism, bold mind:

Further on:

And still further on, bold mine:

But then again, the Germanic Catholic world tends to have problems (Luther, anyone?). Today it's the German priests and bishops who tend to lead the charge in promoting modern heresies and the undermining of traditional Catholicism.

 

I'm a convert to Christianity whose path was: atheism -> psychedelic spirituality ->Catholicism, which means that I don't really have the cultural views of Christianity or Catholicism. Culturally, it may very well feel abhorrent to some people. The teachings I've encountered about the life of Christ do not say such things, though, and sometimes one's feelings show more about one's own biases than the actual teachings of the religion.

Sexuality is NOT abhorrent in Catholicism. Christ's celibacy is not a denunciation of marriage. Again, matrimony is a sacrament of the Church, which means that it is good and brings about God's grace! From the catechism:

Sounds pretty good to me, and I imagine LDS would agree with this Catholic view.

I think where LDS and Catholics differ in their views of marriage is whether or not it is necessary for salvation/exaltation. From my understanding of your doctrine, it is necessary for the highest levels of heaven, which, to me, seems to indicate that Christ must be married at some point. For Catholicism, marriage is not necessary, so there was no need for Christ to be married.

So, it's not necessary for Him, but does that mean He couldn't/didn't?

My understanding is that He devoted Himself fully 100% to His Father and the Kingdom of Heaven, and to His bride, the Church (notice that marriage is used as the metaphor there). If Christ were married, He would not be able to do this, as He would also have to be devoted to His family. He would either neglect the kingdom or His family to some degree. It would be a polygamous marriage (married to a wife AND married to the Church), and the reasons the Catholic Church rejects polygamy would apply:

 

I've always thought of family as part of the Kingdom so if he had a family he would still be 100% there ... but those times he went off on his own - do you feel that would be not all in either?

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

I've always thought of family as part of the Kingdom so if he had a family he would still be 100% there ... but those times he went off on his own - do you feel that would be not all in either?

I think an analogous situation would be when He left his mother and father as a child and taught in the temple. He pointedly told them that His Father's business, the Kingdom of Heaven, was more important than His earthly family. But I understand that in the LDS paradigm, the earthly family is inextricably linked with heaven, so I can understand why Christ being married would make sense. If you unlink heaven and a spouse, meaning a spouse is not necessary for heaven, can you see how Christ not being married makes sense?

[Rain]

39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think an analogous situation would be when He left his mother and father as a child and taught in the temple. He pointedly told them that His Father's business, the Kingdom of Heaven, was more important than His earthly family. But I understand that in the LDS paradigm, the earthly family is inextricably linked with heaven, so I can understand why Christ being married would make sense. If you unlink heaven and a spouse, meaning a spouse is not necessary for heaven, can you see how Christ not being married makes sense?

I think of it not so much of a spouse, but as in my family was his family first.  Of course we believe in the premortal life of each of us so that may make the greater difference in the way we feel.

 

[3DOP]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

Thanks for responding.

What is the rationale behind priest celibacy? I assume that this would extend to the thought of Jesus being married and having children, right? That is --- I assume that that thought is abhorrent to Catholics. 

Rongo, hey, hi, all my best.

First question. Ans: Sacrifice. That is what priests do. Priests in every civilization or barbarious circumstance offer sacrifice. It might be acceptable, and reasonable or not. It might be wicked or holy. But priests offer sacrifice. Look at that passage in one of the Peter epistles about the priesthood of all believers. Even unordained, non-sacramentally, all of God's children are called to behave as priests, and offer sacrifice:

"Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

---I Pet. 2:5

Second question: For reasons that are suggested by my fellow religionist Miserere, it would seem inappropriate of our Lord to have favored one or even more women, in light of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Abhorrent? Yes. I will embrace that term. But perhaps not for the reason that you might assign, rongo. 

Happy Easter Everyone...we are almost there, only a little further, praise God.

3DOP

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 3/31/2021 at 11:24 PM, 3DOP said:

 

Miserere Nobis: "But then again, the Germanic Catholic world tends to have problems (Luther, anyone?). Today it's the German priests and bishops who tend to lead the charge in promoting modern heresies and the undermining of traditional Catholicism."

The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber?

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, longview said:

This caused me to ask why was it urgent for the women to hurry (at dawn after Saturday Sabbath) to Jesus' Tomb?  Was the anointing and spicing prescribed in the Mosaic Law?  Was it normally done by the surviving wife (wives) and possibly children and family?

I searched but only could find this - - -

Maybe @Robert F. Smith and other scholars can weigh in on the questions?  Did Mary and Martha do the same for Lazarus when he was first buried?

Not everyone could afford those expensive spices or linens, and Jewish practice was to bury them immediately after death.  I myself have helped carry a dead woman on a pallet directly from her place of death in her home to the nearby Jewish cemetery in the hills of Judah.  No spices were used, and a simple shroud covered her.  She was immediately lowered into a freshly dug grave, and a rabbi from nearby Jerusalem helped conduct Qaddish at graveside.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But I understand that in the LDS paradigm, the earthly family is inextricably linked with heaven, so I can understand why Christ being married would make sense. If you unlink heaven and a spouse, meaning a spouse is not necessary for heaven, can you see how Christ not being married makes sense?

I couldn't imagine heaven that wasn't entirely based around the family.  What would be the point?

[rongo]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

What a terrible priest, teaching heresy.

I knew at the time that he wasn't a typical, representative priest. I went to high school in Chicago, and had Catholic friends and was interested in other religions (we Mormons were a small minority). Lutheran creeds in northern Germany, on my mission, also embrace the literal resurrection, but Lutherans (to the extent they knew and wanted to talk about their faith) largely believe that those in heaven are "spirit." 

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But then again, the Germanic Catholic world tends to have problems (Luther, anyone?). Today it's the German priests and bishops who tend to lead the charge in promoting modern heresies and the undermining of traditional Catholicism.

Interesting. I thought that Cardinal Ratzinger was a conservative traditionalist, and that the threat to orthodoxy came from Latin America and Africa (e.g., Mary as co-redemptrix, etc.). Where do the American bishops and cardinals rank generally in the orthodoxy pecking order?

I remember reading when I was first married (late 90s) about the looming rift over the co-redemptrix controversy (Mary as co-redeemer with Jesus), which was supposed to be heavily supported in Latin America. 

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt Jesus was polygamous, at least in mortality. Not due to any idea of how Jesus should live but due to the way his followers dealt with polygamy. 

Jesus' immediate followers are not on record as opposing polygamy, actually. It's not passed upon as forbidden in the NT, and the only possible reference to it is Paul saying a bishop has to be married to one wife. I am not sure of the original Greek text, but if one has two wives, then one also has one wife (one source I found says the Greek means literally "one-woman man", so that seems to be a directive). If one assumes that in the verse in question a bishop is being singled out as restricting him to having just one wife, that suggests that for anyone else it's okay to have as many as desired. If the NT church was opposed to polygamy, you'd think on such a serious subject there'd be a definite rule somewhere in the NT. If Paul is going to tell them don't eat the blood of pagan sacrifices, you'd think he, of all people, would say something about polygamy. Is there anything in the early patristic writings to suggest a prohibition?

On the other hand, Paul also says that women should be silent in church. So, is the one-woman man bishop doctrinal, or Paul's opinion or advice?

All that aside, we still have the problem of multiple important personages in the OT being polygamous -- Jesus never condemned this, did he?

Quote

Going to a hard monogamy stance when the founder was polygamous would seem to be a hard turn. Judaism was turning away from polygamy. It was illegal in most of the Roman Empire and Jews were only allowed to practice it in their own province. It is hard to tell how prevalent the practice was as we have almost no family records from the area. The sect at Qumran condemned polygamy as one of the great sins of mainstream Judaism.

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that polygyny was illegal in the Roman empire, which is actually something I believed to be the case, too, but then I thought to look it up. And I found confusion.

It appears that while a Roman man could only have one official wife (at a time), as you say below. If he were sufficiently powerful he could have as many concubines as he could afford, no problemo. It appears that later Constantine made a law about it, but it was only sporadically enforced.

Quote

One of the early problems in the Christian church based on Paul’s letter was all the widows. Without polygamy or mistresses they had to form charitable giving drives and the like.

 

Note I am in no way trying to suggest that the Romans and the rest of the Empire were sexually monogamous. Taking mistresses, liaisons with slaves, pederasty (in Greece), and the like. They were big on monogamy but only the marriage part.

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 It's not passed upon as forbidden in the NT, and the only possible reference to it is Paul saying a bishop has to be married to one wife. I am not sure of the original Greek text, but if one has two wives, then one also has one wife (one source I found says the Greek means literally "one-woman man", so that seems to be a directive). If one assumes that in the verse in question a bishop is being singled out as restricting him to having just one wife, that suggests that for anyone else it's okay to have as many as desired. If the NT church was opposed to polygamy, you'd think on such a serious subject there'd be a definite rule somewhere in the NT.

Pretty sure the Bishop statement is a minimum requirement, not a maximum limit.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Pretty sure the Bishop statement is a minimum requirement, not a maximum limit.

Well, that's what I thought, too, but some sources I've read suggest a maximum limit. How's your koine?

μιας γυνικος άνδρα

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, that's what I thought, too, but some sources I've read suggest a maximum limit. How's your koine?

μιας γυνικος άνδρα

 Non-existent.

But googling that phrase translates it as "a one woman man".  It still doesn't indicate a maximum limit or a minimum requirement.

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I couldn't imagine heaven that wasn't entirely based around the family.  What would be the point?

Hi JLH.

The Catholic understanding of family in heaven is truly deeper, richer, and more sublime than any of us probably imagine.

Note what St. Paul does NOT say in the following text. He does not admonish husbands to love their wife as Christ loved His wife, but to love their wives even as Christ loved the Church. The Church, "the glorious church", is the spotless bride of Jesus Christ, not some one or more individual woman who will never share Jesus with anyone else forever.

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:"

---Eph. 5:25

"That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."

---Ep. 5:26-30

Notice the reason Christ nourishes and cherishes the Church. Like a husband and wife are one flesh, so it is now, even now, that the Church comprises the physical members of the Body of Christ, even of His flesh and His very bones. St. Paul refers to this marriage which will be consummated when the holy Bride of Christ, in all her physical beauty, openly celebrates with her Heavenly spouse, a marriage feast.

 "For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."  

---I Cor. 11:2

Even were I LDS, it seems like it would be difficult to reconcile the glorious and public marriage of Christ to the Church, with a hidden and merely speculative marriage of Christ to one or more women on earth. I go so far as a Catholic, without wanting to be insensitive to LDS sentiments on this subject, to say that it would seem inappropriate for the Lamb of God to have wedded and left behind one or more women on earth, when the following was the plan all along:

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give glory to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath prepared herself. And it is granted to her that she should clothe herself with fine linen, glittering and white. For the fine linen are the justifications of saints. And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith to me: These words of God are true."

---Rev. 19:7-9

The thoughtful Catholic would never with cavalier complacency speak in a way that would diminish earthly marriage with the good and natural subsequent desire to share eternity with our families in heaven. The earthly marriage should be eternally remembered with grateful hearts for the souls that graced our life during our mortality. The very purpose of family on earth is not to perpetuate itself for eternity, but to prepare and help save the souls of children and spouses so that together they might help form the new family of God forever. The Gospel reveals that Jesus is even now preparing for His Bride a dwelling place, where He will be also, when He takes His Church to Himself:

"Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be."

---Jn. 14:1-3

The Heavenly Spouse does not tell us too much, but if we believe in Him, our hearts cannot be troubled. He knows all of our good longings. We should not doubt that His delight will be to see His Bride delighted with what He has done for her.  

JLH, I want to acknowledge that I think it is a good, natural, and healthy desire to view heaven in light of family. Hopefully, our LDS friends can see that Catholics may also look forward to intimate familial relations in heaven. I won't say my heaven is better than your heaven. Preferring one of the views of heaven doesn't make either of them true though, for you or for us. Both LDS and Catholics should agree that however heaven appears in its reality, the goal is to be part of it, and not be worried about whether it seems like we would like it. I think there is plenty of mystery about it whether we are LDS or Catholic, except that those who are called to the marriage are blessed (Rev. 19 above). One word blessed. What can be the full meaning in this context? A good subject for our meditations.          

Edited April 2, 2021 by 3DOP

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi JLH.

The Catholic understanding of family in heaven is truly deeper, richer, and more sublime than any of us probably imagine.

Note what St. Paul does NOT say in the following text. He does not admonish husbands to love their wife as Christ loved His wife, but to love their wives even as Christ loved the Church. The Church, "the glorious church", is the spotless bride of Jesus Christ, not some one or more individual woman who will never share Jesus with anyone else forever.

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:"

---Eph. 5:25

"That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."

---Ep. 5:26-30

Notice the reason Christ nourishes and cherishes the Church. Like a husband and wife are one flesh, so it is now, even now, that the Church comprises the physical members of the Body of Christ, even of His flesh and His very bones. St. Paul refers to this marriage which will be consummated when the holy Bride of Christ, in all her physical beauty, openly celebrates with her Heavenly spouse, a marriage feast.

 "For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."  

---I Cor. 11:2

Even were I LDS, it seems like it would be difficult to reconcile the glorious and public marriage of Christ to the Church, with a hidden and merely speculative marriage of Christ to one or more women on earth. I go so far as a Catholic, without wanting to be insensitive to LDS sentiments on this subject, to say that it would seem inappropriate for the Lamb of God to have wedded and left behind one or more women on earth, when the following was the plan all along:

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give glory to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath prepared herself. And it is granted to her that she should clothe herself with fine linen, glittering and white. For the fine linen are the justifications of saints. And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith to me: These words of God are true."

---Rev. 19:7-9

The thoughtful Catholic would never with cavalier complacency speak in a way that would diminish earthly marriage with the good and natural subsequent desire to share eternity with our families in heaven. The earthly marriage should be eternally remembered with grateful hearts for the souls that graced our life during our mortality. The very purpose of family on earth is not to perpetuate itself for eternity, but to prepare and help save the souls of children and spouses so that together they might help form the new family of God forever. The Gospel reveals that Jesus is even now preparing for His Bride a dwelling place, where He will be also, when He takes His Church to Himself:

"Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be."

---Jn. 14:1-3

The Heavenly Spouse does not tell us too much, but if we believe in Him, our hearts cannot be troubled. He knows all of our good longings. We should not doubt that His delight will be to see His Bride delighted with what He has done for her.  

JLH, I want to acknowledge that I think it is a good, natural, and healthy desire to view heaven in light of family. Hopefully, our LDS friends can see that Catholics may also look forward to intimate familial relations in heaven. I won't say my heaven is better than your heaven. Preferring one of the views of heaven doesn't make either of them true though, for you or for us. Both LDS and Catholics should agree that however heaven appears in its reality, the goal is to be part of it, and not be worried about whether it seems like we would like it. I think there is plenty of mystery about it whether we are LDS or Catholic, except that those who are called to the marriage are blessed (Rev. 19 above). One word blessed. What can be the full meaning in this context? A good subject for our meditations.          

Thank you for this.
I would just point out that we are seeing a dichotomy here that may not exist.
The Church that Christ loves is not an earthly organization, but what the Bible calls the Church of the Firstborn.
The Church of the Firstborn is the eternally sealed family of man, ie family.  At least in Mormonism.

So when we say Family and you say Church, it's actually the same thing.  Sort of.

[JustAnAustralian]

Kevin Barney (in his NT footnotes) had this to say about the meaning of the Bishop one wife thing

"It is unclear precisely what this means. It could be read as excluding (a) the single, 
(b) the polygamous, (c) the divorced, and (d) those remarried after being widowed. 
The words can also convey the connotation “devoted solely to his wife."