Was st joseph also a perpetual virgin, an immaculate Conception , and assumed into heaven body and soul?


My dear friends

what do you think? Was he ? Do you know any conclusive church teachings that say this can’t be? Any revelations from saints you can provide?
I think he was all 3 of them myself.

Let me know your thoughts too.

May St Joseph, our father and lord, pray for us:thumbsup::slight_smile:



there is no divine revelation and no defined Church teaching on this matter


Dear puzzleannie

Thanks for clarifying that. Given it is possible then, which way do you think or lean on the 3 questions? We should be free to speculate in the absence of clear guidance one way or the other from the church? He must have been an extraordinarily holy Saint to be the husband of Mary and father of Jesus. What do you think?

God bless you:thumbsup::slight_smile:


No to assumed into heaven, and immaculate conception. No doctrine or tradition on either.

Maybe on virginity. Some say yes. Some say he had another wife. Do to “brothers/sisters” of Jesus mentionings in scripture. It has to do with how one translates the word for “brothers”. I am of the school of thought that it was ment in the general sense as in kinsmen ( not actual brothers ) and leading to the opinion that Joseph was a Virgin.

It is mentioned that St. Joseph is the saint of a happy death because it is generally thought that he died in the arms of Our Lady and Jesus.

– Cadian :knight1:


Well, Joseph wasn’t actually the “father” of Jesus. Jesus was the son of God, carried to earthly birth by Mary.
More to your question: I suppose if God demanded a sinless woman to be His mother, there is nothing too outlandish in the idea of Him demanding a sinless man to be His foster father.

The only trouble is this: when does it all stop? God might demand sinless men to be his disciples; to be his cousins; his friends, etc. After all, it would be better to shield Him from all occasions of sin, including those who might be sinners themselves.
The problem, of course, is that Jesus made a point of dealing with sinners, so there was no point shielding him from the realities of the world.
So, why NOT a mother who had sinned at least once, or a father who had sinned at least once? That would make Jesus all the more human.

And that is why I simply do not believe in any “perpetual virginity”, “immaculate conception” or “assumption”.


The immaculate conception refers to a person born without original sin. As Joseph did not give birth to Jesus, I doubt this would have been needed. A virgin-this view does seem to closely fit the Catholic one. The Eastern Orthodox churches seem to believe he had been married before and was a widow- we certainly do not subscribe to this view- officially, nor do i personally.

Assumed into heaven body and soul- Sounds like Enoch, Elijah, Mary. This is possible, but if this possible privilege were important to our own salvations, surely - would we not have heard of it in private revelation, as with the immaculate conception suggestion?

I think the answer to all of these is the answer Jesus gave about Saint John- meaning exactly what he said, as the gospel shows- “if… what is it to you?” The people misinterpreted it by attempting to find meaning in it, when Jesus had not revealed it. The silence of God is noise. Based on this- I would assume that Joseph died a virgin, especially as he is not mentioned after Jesus’ childhood, and as his wife, whom I assume was his first wife, died a virgin, and as Joseph, we are told, was a righteous man. Did Joseph ever sin-- I would say in all likelihood yet, was he born of immaculate conception, I would say in all likelihood no- why? Because we especially associate these both with Mary. Why would God exhault her so high with these, if unimportant. Joseph in contrast is not associated with either of these. Would it not be unjust if God were to honour Mary more than Joseph to such a degree, if both were as blessed and righteous?

And So, I would say that Joseph was a virgin until death, but likely sometimes sinned, and was not conceived of an immaculate conception- would we not be told if he had been?

As for assumed into heaven body and soul- this is possible of him, it could have happened. Even so- when God is silent, it is for a reason, an I would not concern myself with this hypothesis, unless I was given reason to believe otherwise. As it is, on most of these matters, all we can do is speculate!


According to The Life of Saint Joseph "As manifested by Our Lord, Jesus Christ to: Maria Cecilia Baij, O.S.B."
Yes, St. Joseph was a purpetual virgin, Satan was forbidden from tempting him in this particular way.
No, his was not an immaculate conception but he was given full use of reason and mental capacity from the time he was an infant.
Yes and No to the third question. He died and went to the Limbo of the fathers where he was given his glorified body by Christ and accended into heaven with Christ at His Accension, thus he was and is continued to be given great honor in heaven.

His main temptation on earth was from a feeling of unworthyness for the task he had been given. God allowed him long periods of dryness in order to cleans him to perfection.
He was also aware that he would be the patron of a happy death and prayed for the dying all throughout his life.

It is a great book, the most difficult part of reading it is coming to grips with his great humility. He endured much harsh treatment for his docility, something few of us are capable of doing.


According to The Life of Saint Joseph "As manifested by Our Lord, Jesus Christ to: Maria Cecilia Baij, O.S.B."
Yes, St. Joseph was a purpetual virgin, Satan was forbidden from tempting him in this particular way.

**All this is clearly error and delusion, as the tradition of the Church recorded in the proto-evangelia (among other places) is that St. Joseph was a widower with other children, among whom was James who accompanied the Holy Family to Egypt.

The Assumption of St. Joseph is one of the fantasies of the notorious Fr. Feeney. (Even the Assumption of the Theotokos admits she suffered physical death, btw.)

The very dogma of the Immaculate Conception says it was a SINGULAR privilege of God. If something happens more than once, it’s not singular.

And the idea that God prevented the devil from tempting St. Joseph says that God IS a respecter of persons after all. And why would he protect St. Joseph from something He didn’t protect Jesus Himself from?**



Do you think your statement of “error and delusion” is perhaps the product of the difference in beliefs of Orthodox and Roman Catholics?

Please site from the Proto-Evangelia the source so we all can understand your view point.


– Cadian :knight1:


Again, while there is nothing defined on this, and while this is all pure speculation, I always thought one of the typical explanations of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters,” or “brethren,” was that they were his half-brothers through Joseph?


“Brethren of the Lord”

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

– Cadian :knight1:



From the article:

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4:9).

I like the Proto-evangelium of James. It’s a shame that we can’t teach it.


My dear friends

A heated debate at times. I think St Joseph was all 3. I think the greater our appreciation of the need for him to be sinless as the husband of Mary but more so as the father of Jesus the more we will tend to agree he must have been. The first christians knew very little about the importance of Mary you know. It’s taken a long time for us to appreciate her as much as we do now. It’s not always been like this. The Holy Spirit is guiding the church into all truth over time. There is no reason at all these theories cannot be right. Not even because they have not been mentioned much in the past, or we have no tradition or many private revelations. We know very little you know. We don’t know for sure what happens to the unborn who die without baptism for instance. I think Jesus’ brothers and sisters simply refers to close friends. I think there is a reason we don’t have a tomb of St Joseph. I don’t think Mary’s Immaculate Conception is taught that it was singular in that noone else could have one. I think that because we know very little of St Joseph we don’t appreciate the great sanctity he ust have had. I really think we need to meditate a lot on how holy he must have been to have Jesus be obedient to him and a role model for Jesus. I’m a bit surprised at some comments that seem to really fail to appreciate the need for tremendous sanctity with this man. In scripture we find no imperfection in him. We have very little oral tradition about him from the apostles. But the same was with Mary to a lesser degree. Just because Joseph is not mentioned much in the bible does not mean he was not important and could not have experienced these things. Many other people have been protected from sin you know. Padre Pio never committed a mortal sin. He was not sinless because there would have been venial sins. I’m just making the point that it’s possible for someone to be protected from sin so they are sinless like Mary or maintain their baptismal innocence like Padre Pio. I think teachings about him being a widower are wrong. I finish by saying we should not discount the possibility because we have not heard much about it. The Holy Spirit was almost forgotten for a long time until recent times it seems to me. Keep an open mind.

God bless you all:thumbsup::slight_smile:


My dear friend

I’ll just answer you before bedtime because you sent me the book most kindly. I think they refer to close friends as is still a customary way of talking throughout the mid east today. My Iraqi born chaldean catholic friend told me this is how they spoke and still do.

God bless you dear friend:thumbsup::slight_smile:



Early Christians knew plenty about the importance of Mary. Probably as much if not more than many calling themselves Catholic today. The ordinary people of Ephesus actually rejoiced in the streets when the Council proclaimed her to be Mother of God - why do you think that was?

The Dormition/Assumption was ALWAYS taught, right from the earliest centuries, pretty much unanimously. Although not defined as dogma. The Immaculate Conception was also taught from early centuries.

‘Ineffabilis Deus’ teaches that the Immaculate Conception was a ***singular ***grace and privilege - its literal words. Meaning it was a privilege given to one single person - Mary only - and no-one else.

Now if it were important in any way for Joseph to be sinless or assumed into heaven, then it would also be important for us to know about his sinlessness and assumption, as it is important for us to know (as we have always known) about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

Furthermore we WOULD both know about them and be required to believe in them, as we know about and are required to believe in hers. God doesn’t hide His lights under a bushel. :shrug:


well the reason Our Lady was born sinless is because Jesus received His human nature from her, and His human nature needed to be without sin :slight_smile:

so it’s important for the Immaculate Conception to be true regarding Mary.

and since she’s His sinless Mother, He didn’t want her body to decay in the ground, so she was assumed into Heaven.

it all goes back to Christ’s divinity and sinlessness…


A heated debate at times. I think St Joseph was all 3.

**It’s very dangerous to choose to think things that go against the teaching and tradition of the Church.

This is the actual defintion of heresy: choosing to believe wrong thigns.

As far as giving any book saying this an Imprimatur, as a Bishop I say that such is a false teaching and spiritual delusion.**


You are a bishop? Really?

How is asking a question about pointing to where in the proto-evgelium as a source leades to heresy?

Why do you always post in “bold”? :shrug:

– Cadian :knight1:


My dear friend

You are a different religion to me. I don’t know your teaching and tradition. The only teaching here I have doubts over is the immaculate conception of St Joseph. Some are saying Mary had a singular privelege but this does not say it cannot happen to St Joseph as I first look at it. St Joseph could have also had a singular privelege. It could just be our misunderstanding of what’s being said as far as the singular part goes.The church usually leaves the door open on questions like this in case we learn more eg. maybe Joseph was also an immaculate conception. The church has always been very careful and very slow so as to not err. I was hoping for better clarification on this in the arguments.Are you a bishop though? Are we not allowed to talk without everyone getting offended as if a new dogma is being defined???

God bless you:thumbsup::slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.