Augustins sermon 186

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

myfavoritmartin

Guest
Anyone have this in full context? I noticed the catechism uses a snippet of this sermon to support the EV doctrine.
Any help?
 
Also can you link to or paste the French. I might be able to help with that too.
 
It does refer to ever-Virgin. It refers to Catechism paragraph 510 quoting St. Augustine:510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).Sermon 186 seems elusive via the web. The corresponding code PL 38,999 however, refers to a database of ECFs. If a person wanted to get a free trial to this database (called Patrologia Latina Database), the link is here. Perhaps there would be Sermon 186. Apparently with a subscription you can even get a CD-ROM of the database. If anyone has this and can recommend it, please do!

As a side note, St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Augustine making a similar statement about Mary in his Summa Theologica:On the contrary, It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it.” Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): “What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this–‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it’–except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this–‘it shall be shut for evermore’–but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.Q.28)I’ve also been unable to locate the full text of De Annunt. Dom. that Aquinas cites, so if anyone has that, it might also be fruitful for the OP.
 
It should be remembered that a large portion of Augustine’s writings have never been translated into English. Some sermons have only recently been discovered and consequently may not even have been published in a Latin form.
 
As sermons go, Augustine’s Sermon 186 seems to be short, only three paragraphs long. It is available in both Latin and Italian versions at www.augustinus.it

The path to the Latin version is: S. Aurelii Augustini OPERA OMNIA - editio latina > PL 38 > Sermones > SERMO 186 IN NATALI DOMINI

The path to the Italian version is: Tutte le Opere - versione italiana > Discorsi > Discorsi > DISCORSO 186 NATALE DEL SIGNORE

The quote is from the third sentence in the first paragraph. The Latin reads,
“Concipiens virgo, pariens virgo, virgo gravida, virgo feta, virgo perpetua.” The Italian reads, “Vergine nel concepirlo, vergine nel generarlo, vergine nel portarlo in grembo, vergine dopo averlo partorito, vergine per sempre.”

Unfortunately, I can’t read either language.

P.S.: The French version is at: www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/saints/augustin/sermons/sermons2/solpan/186.htm
 
With thanks to Todd. Here is the Italian (because large paragraph Latin translators are hard to find), which is similar to Latin anyway:

DISCORSO 186

NATALE DEL SIGNORE

Il parto verginale di Maria.
  1. Rallegriamoci, fratelli, gioiscano e si allietino le genti. Questo giorno per noi venne reso sacro non dall’astro solare che vediamo, ma dal suo Creatore invisibile quando, divenuto visibile per noi, lo partorì la Vergine Madre, feconda pur rimanendo integra, anche lei creata dal Creatore invisibile. Vergine nel concepirlo, vergine nel generarlo, vergine nel portarlo in grembo, vergine dopo averlo partorito, vergine per sempre. Perché ti meravigli di questo, uomo? Era conveniente che nascesse così Dio, quando si degnò di diventare uomo. Così l’ha creata colui che è stato fatto da lei. Prima che venisse formato nel seno materno già esisteva e, poiché era onnipotente, poté essere formato pur rimanendo ciò che era prima. Si formò una madre, mentre era presso il Padre; e mentre veniva fatto dalla madre, rimase sempre nel Padre. Come avrebbe potuto smettere di essere Dio quando cominciò ad essere uomo, se alla sua madre fece dono di non smettere di essere vergine quando lo partorì? Il Verbo si è fatto carne 1, non significa che cessò di essere Verbo per divenire carne mortale, ma che la carne si unì al Verbo per non essere più mortale. Come l’uomo è formato di anima e di corpo, così Cristo è Dio e uomo. È uomo e insieme Dio; è Dio e insieme uomo: senza confusione della natura, ma nell’unità della persona. Colui che come Figlio di Dio è da sempre coeterno al Padre che lo genera, è lo stesso che cominciò ad essere dalla Vergine come figlio dell’uomo. E così alla divinità del Figlio si è aggiunta l’umanità; tuttavia non si è formata una “quaternità” di persone, ma rimane la Trinità.
Contro il docetismo.
  1. Non fatevi ingannare pertanto dall’opinione di alcuni che non prestano sufficiente attenzione alla regola della fede e agli insegnamenti delle divine Scritture. Dicono costoro: il figlio dell’uomo è diventato Figlio di Dio; ma il Figlio di Dio non è diventato figlio dell’uomo. Hanno detto così per cercare di salvaguardare la verità; tuttavia non sono stati capaci di esprimere totalmente la verità. Hanno salvaguardato questa verità: la natura umana poté mutarsi in meglio, ma la natura divina non poté mutarsi in peggio. E questo è vero. Ma è vero anche che, pur non essendosi assolutamente la natura divina mutata in peggio, il Verbo si è fatto carne. Il Vangelo non dice: “La carne si è fatta Verbo”, ma: Il Verbo si è fatto carne; e Verbo significa Dio, perché il Verbo era Dio 2. E che cosa s’intende per carne se non l’uomo? Infatti in Cristo la carne dell’uomo non era senza anima; per cui dice: L’anima mia è triste fino alla morte 3. Se dunque Verbo significa Dio e carne significa uomo, che cosa significa: Il Verbo si è fatto carne se non: “Colui che era Dio si è fatto uomo”? E perciò colui che era Figlio di Dio è divenuto figlio dell’uomo assumendo ciò che era inferiore, non mutando ciò che era superiore; prendendo ciò che non era, non perdendo ciò che era. Come potremmo affermare nella professione di fede di credere nel Figlio di Dio che è nato da Maria Vergine, se fosse nato dalla Vergine Maria non il Figlio di Dio, ma un figlio dell’uomo? Nessun cristiano nega che da quella donna fosse nato un figlio d’uomo; afferma però che Dio si è fatto uomo e che quindi un uomo è divenuto Dio. Il Verbo infatti era Dio e il Verbo si è fatto carne. La vera fede è che colui che era Figlio di Dio, per poter nascere dalla Vergine Maria, prese le sembianze di servo 4, divenne figlio dell’uomo, restando ciò che era e assumendo ciò che non era. Cominciò ad essere nella natura umana, inferiore al Padre 5, continuò a rimanere nella natura divina, nella quale lui e il Padre sono una cosa sola 6.
Il Verbo di Dio è divenuto uomo.
  1. Se non fosse diventata figlio dell’uomo la stessa persona che rimane sempre come Figlio di Dio, come poteva dire l’Apostolo: Egli, possedendo la natura divina, non pensò di valersi della sua eguaglianza con Dio, ma annientò se stesso, prendendo la natura di schiavo e diventando simile agli uomini e rivestendo la natura umana 7? Non un altro ma lui stesso, uguale al Padre nella natura divina, che è anche unigenito Figlio del Padre, annientò se stesso diventando simile agli uomini. Non un altro ma lui stesso, che nella natura divina è uguale al Padre, umiliò non un altro ma se stesso, facendosi obbediente fino alla morte e alla morte di croce 8. Tutto questo il Figlio di Dio poté farlo perché ha assunto quella natura per cui è figlio dell’uomo. Ancora: se colui che è da sempre il Figlio di Dio non fosse lo stesso che è diventato figlio dell’uomo, come può dire l’Apostolo ai Romani: Consacrato al Vangelo di Dio, promesso già nelle sacre Scritture per mezzo dei Profeti, riguardante il Figlio suo, nato come uomo dalla stirpe di David 9? Il Figlio di Dio, esistente da sempre, è divenuto ciò che non era, nascendo come uomo dalla stirpe di David. Ancora: se colui che è Figlio di Dio non è lo stesso che è diventato figlio dell’uomo, in che modo Dio mandò suo Figlio nato da una donna 10? Usando il termine donna nella lingua ebraica non si nega in questo caso la prerogativa della verginità, si vuole intendere semplicemente il sesso femminile. Chi poté essere stato mandato dal Padre se non l’unigenito Figlio di Dio? Come è nato da una donna se non perché colui che era Figlio di Dio presso il Padre, una volta mandato, divenne figlio dell’uomo? Nato dal Padre al di fuori di ogni tempo, nato dalla madre in questo giorno. Ha scelto di nascere in questo giorno che lui stesso ha creato, come è nato da una madre che lui stesso ha fatto nascere. Infatti questo giorno, a cominciare dal quale la luce del giorno aumenta sempre più, è figura pure dell’opera di Cristo, dal quale il nostro uomo interiore si rinnova di giorno in giorno 11. E giustamente l’eterno Creatore, nato nel tempo, non poteva non scegliere come suo giorno natalizio quello che veniva riferito al sole, creatura non eterna.
 
And here’s the Babelfish translation:

SPEECH 186 BEEN BORN THEM OF THE GENTLEMAN The verginale delivery of Maria. 1. We rallegriamo (see below*) ourselves, siblings, gioiscano and people rejoice themselves. This day for we came rendered sacred not dall’ solar star that we see, but from its invisibile Creator when, become visible for we, it he give birth the Vergine Mother, fecund also remaining integral, also created she from the invisibile Creator. Vergine in conceiving it, vergine in generating it, vergine in carrying it in grembo, vergine after to have give birth it, vergine in order always. It amazes why you of this, man? It was convenient that thus God was born, when deigned to become man. Thus l’ it has created he who has been made from she. Before that it came formed in the maternal breast already existed and, since was omnipotent, could be formed also remaining this that was before. A mother formed itself, while she was near the Father; and while she came made from the mother, she always remained in the Father. How she could have stopped of being God when she began to being man, if to its mother it made gift not to stop of being vergine she give birth when it? The Verbo has made meat 1, does not mean that it stopped of being Verbo in order to become meat mortal them, but that the meat joined to the Verbo in order not to be more mortal them. Like l’ man is formed of spirit and of body, thus Christ is God and man. He is man and God entirety; it is God and entirety man: without confusion of the nature, but nell’ unit of the person. He who as Son of God is from always coeterno to the Father generates who it, it is the same one that began to being from the Vergine like son dell’ man. And thus to the divinity of the Son it is itself addition l’ humanity; however a " has not been formed; quaternità" of persons, but it remains the Trinità. Against the docetismo. 2. Fatevi not to trick therefore dall’ opinion of that they do not lend sufficient attention to the rule of the faith and the instructions of the divine Writings. They say costoro: the son dell’ man has become Son of God; but the Son of God has not become son dell’ man. They have said thus in order to try to safeguard the truth; however they have not been able to express the truth totally. They have safeguarded this truth: the human nature could be changed in best, but the divine nature could not be changed in worse. And this is true. But it is true also that, also not being itself absolutely the changed divine nature in worse, the Verbo has made meat. The Gospel does not say: " The meat has made Verbo" , but: The Verbo has made meat; and Verbo means God, because the Verbo was God 2. And what s’ it means for meat if not l’ man? In fact in Christ the meat dell’ man was not without spirit; for which he says: L’ spirit mine is sad until death 3. If therefore Verbo means God and meat it means man, what means: The Verbo has made meat if not: " He who was God has been made uomo"? And therefore he who was Son of God has become son dell’ man assuming this that was inferior, not changing this that was advanced; taking this that was not, not losing this that was. As we could assert in the faith profession to believe in the Son of God that has been born from Vergine Maria, if the Son of God had been born from the Vergine Maria not, but a son dell’ man? No Christian denies that from that woman a son had been born d’ man; it asserts but that God has made man and that therefore a man has become God. The Verbo in fact was God and the Verbo has made meat. The true faith is that he who was Son of God, for being able to be born from the Vergine Maria, taken the sembianze of servant 4, divenne son dell’ man, remaining this that was and assuming this that was not. He began to being in the human, inferior nature to Father 5, continued to remain in the divine nature, in which it and the Father are a single thing 6. The Verbo of God has become man. 3. If he had not become son dell’ man the same person who always remains like Son of God, as he could say l’ Apostle: It, possessing the divine nature, did not think to make use of its eguaglianza with God, but he destroyed if same, taking the slave nature and becoming similar to the men and covering human nature 7? An other but same, equal it to the Father in the divine nature, that also Son of the Father is unigenito, did not destroy if same becoming similar to the men. Not an other but same it, than in the divine nature is equal to the Father, humiliated not an other but if same, making oneself obedient until death and to the cross dead women 8. All this the Son of God could make it because it has assumed that nature for which he is son dell’ man. Still: if he who is from always the Son of God it was not the same one that has become son dell’ man, as he can say l’ Apostle to the Roman: Consecrated to the Gospel di God, promised already in the sacred Writings for means of the Prophets, regarding the Son its, been born like man from the stirpe of David 9? The Son of God, existing from always, has become this that was not, being born like man from the stirpe of David. Still: if he who is Son of God it is not the same one that has become son dell’ man, in that God way sent its Son been born from a woman 10? Using the term woman in the Jewish language the prerogative of the verginità is not denied in this case, is wanted to be meant the feminine sex simply. Who could be be sent from the Father if not l’ unigenito Son of God? As he has been born from a woman if not because he who was Son of God near the Father, once sent, divenne son dell’ man? Been born from the Father outside every time, been born from the mother in this day. He has chosen to be born in this day that same it has created, as he has been born from a mother who same it has made to be born. In fact this day, to begin from which the light of the day increases more and more, is figure pure dell’ work of Christ, from which our inner man renews 11 from day to day. And with justice l’ eternal Creator, been born in the time, could not choose like its christmas day which came in sunlight reported, not eternal creature.

*(for some of the remaining untranslated words, I had luck using a different translator for the words one at a time here. For instance, rallegriamo is a form of the phrase “we cheer up”)
 
HERE IS A SENTENCE BY SENTENCE ONE I HAD WORKED ON…WHAT O YOU THINK?

ANALYSE. ANALYSIS. — De ce qu’en s’incarnant le Verbe de Dieu n’a rien perdu de ce qu’il était, plusieurs concluent qu’on ne peut dire que le Fils de Dieu soit devenu Fils de l’homme. - **From what embodied the Word of God has not lost what it was, many contend that we can not say that the Son of God became the Son of man. ***Ils se trompent, malgré la droiture de leurs intentions, et cette manière de parler est conforme au langage habituel des Ecritures.***They are wrong, despite the uprightness of their intentions, and this way of speaking is consistent with the usual language of the Scriptures. **
    1. Réjouissons-nous,mes frères; que les peuples tressaillent de bonheur et d’allégresse.** Let us rejoice, my brothers, that the good many people happiness and joy.** Ce n’est pas ce soleil visible, mais son invisible Créateur qui a fait pour nous de ce jour un jour sacré ; quand devenu visible pour l’amour de nous, l’invisible Créateur de sa mère est né de son sein fécond sans aucune atteinte à sa pureté virginale; car elle est restée Vierge en concevant son Fils, Vierge en l’enfantant, Vierge en le portant, Vierge en le nourrissant de son sein, Vierge toujours. **This is not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who has done for us this day a sacred day, when became visible for the love of us, the invisible Creator of his mother was born from her womb without any fruitful injury to his virginal purity, because it remained in designing Madonna’s Son, the Virgin birth, the Virgin bearing the Virgin feeding her womb, the Virgin ever. **
      Pourquoi t’étonner de ceci, ô mortel ? Il fallait qu’en daignant se faire homme Dieu na. **Why surprised by this, O mortal? It was only deigned to become a man God na. quît de cette sorte, et qu’il formât ainsi Celle qui devait lui donner le jour. quit this way, and that format and one that was to give birth. En effet, il était avant de naître, et avec sa toute-puissance, il (155) pouvait naître tout en demeurant ce qu’il était. Indeed, before he was born, and with his omnipotence, he (155) could arise while remaining what it was. Il se créa donc une Mère tout en demeurant dans le sein de son Père; et naissant d’elle, il ne cessa de demeurer en Lui. He therefore created a mother while still in the bosom of the Father, and born of her, he continued to remain in Him. Et comment aurait-il cessé d’être Dieu en se faisant homme; puisqu’il accordait à sa Mère de ne cesser pas d’être Vierge, tout en l’enfantant ? Aussi en se faisant chair le Verbe n’a point péri, il ne s’est point transformé en chair ; c’est la chair qui s’est unie au Verbe pour ne point périr : et comme il ya dans l’homme une âme et un corps, le Christ est Dieu et homme tout à la fois. And how could he ceased to be God in becoming man, gave it to his mother does not cease to be virgin, while the child? Also in becoming flesh the Word did not die, he did point turned into flesh, but the flesh was united to the Word in order not to perish: and as there is in man a soul and a body, Christ is God and man at the times. Ainsi l’homme est Dieu, et Dieu est homme; il n’y a pas de confusion de nature, mais unité de personne. Ainsi encore le Fils de Dieu, qui est coéternel à son Père en naissant éternellement de lui, a commencé, en naissant d’une Vierge, à être fils de l’homme; et c’est ainsi que l’humanité s’est jointe en lui à la divinité, sans former pourtant une quatrième personne et sans ajouter à la Trinité. Thus man is God, and God is man, there is no confusion likely, but unity of person. Thus even the Son of God, which is coeternal his Father eternally born of him, began, was born of a Virgin, to be son of man, and thus that humanity has joined him in divinity, yet without forming a fourth person, and without adding to the Trinity. **
    1. Ne vous laissez donc pas gagner au sentiment de certains esprits trop peu attentifs à la règle de foi et aux divins oracles des Ecritures.** Do not let the feeling of winning some spirits too little attention to the rule of faith and divine oracles of Scripture. **Le Fils de l’homme, disent-ils, est devenu Fils de Dieu, mais le Fils de Dieu n’est pas devenu fils de l’homme. **The Son of man, they say, became the Son of God but the Son of God does not become a son of man. En parlant ainsi ils pensent bien, mais ils ne savent s’exprimer correctement. In speaking so they feel good, but they do express themselves properly. **Que veulent-ils dire, sinon que à nature humaine a pu s’améliorer et que la nature divine n’a pu se détériorer ? **What do they say, if not in human nature that could improve and that the divine nature could deteriorate? Ce qui est incontestable. Cependant, quoique la divinité ne se détériore d’aucune manière, le Verbe ne s’est pas moins fait chair. What is indisputable. However, although the divinity from deteriorating in any way, did the Word made flesh no less. **L’Evangile en effet ne dit pas: La chair s’est faite Verbe; mais : « Le Verbe s’est fait chair ». **The Gospel in fact does not say: The Word was made flesh, but “The Word became flesh”. Or, le Verbe est Dieu, puisqu’il est écrit : « Et le Verbe était Dieu (1) ». However, the Word is God, since it is written: "And the Word was God **(1). Quant à la chair, ne désigne-t-elle pas l’homme, car le Christ ne se l’est point unie sans prendre l’âme en même temps ? **As for the flesh, does she not man, because Christ is not the point united without taking the soul at the same time? **Aussi dit-il. Also he says. «Mon âme est triste jusqu’à la mort (2) ». **"My soul is sad unto death **(2). Mais si le Verbe est Dieu et si la chair est l’homme même, que signifie : « Le Verbe s’est fait chair », sinon: Dieu s’est fait homme; sinon encore : Le Fils de Dieu s’est fait fils de l’homme, en prenant une nature inférieure et sans changer sa divine nature; en s’unissant ce qu’il n’était pas, sans rien perdre de ce qu’il était ? **But if the Word is God and the flesh is the same man, that means: “The Word became flesh”, otherwise: God became man, otherwise even the Son of God became son of man, by taking a lower nature and without changing his divine nature by uniting what was not, without losing what it was? **
      Comment d’ailleurs confesserions-nous, d’après la règle de la foi, que nous croyons au Fils de **How indeed we confessions, according to the rule of faith, we believe in the Son of **
    1. Jean, I, 1, 14. John, I, 1, 14. — 2. - 2. Matt. Matt. XXVI, 38. XXVI, 38.
      Dieu qui est né de la Vierge Marie, si de la Vierge Marie était né, non pas le Fils de Dieu, mais le Fils de l’homme ?** God who is born of the Virgin Mary, where the Virgin Mary was born, not the Son of God but the Son of man?** Quel chrétien nierait qu’elle a donné le jour au Fils de l’homme, mais aussi que Dieu s’étant fait homme, l’homme est ainsi devenu Dieu ? **What Christian would deny that she gave birth to the Son of man, but that God had made man, man has become God? Car « le Verbe était Dieu, et le Verbe s’est fait chair ». Reconnaissons-le donc : le Fils de Dieu, pour naître de la Vierge Marie, est devenu fils de l’homme en prenant une nature d’esclave ; en restant ce qu’il était, il est devenu ce qu’il n’était pas ; il a commencé à être ce qui le rend inférieur à son Père, tout en conservant ce qui le rend un avec lui. For “the Word was God and the Word was made flesh.” Let us therefore the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, became a son of man by nature a slave; in remaining what it was, it became what it was, it began to be making less than the Father, while retaining what makes one with him. **
    1. Si le Sauveur, qui est toujours le Fils de Dieu, n’était pas devenu réellement fils de l’homme, comment l’Apôtre dirait-il de lui « Ayant la nature de Dieu, il n’a pas cru usurper en se faisant égal à Dieu; cependant il s’est anéanti lui-même en prenant la nature d’esclave, en devenant semblable aux hommes et en se montrant homme partout l’extérieur ?** If the Savior, which is always the Son of God, did not become truly son of man, how the Apostle would he say to him "Having the nature of God, he did not believe in being usurped equal to God but he has destroyed himself by taking the nature of a slave, becoming similar to men and being men everywhere outside**? » Il n’est pas ici question d’un autre; c’est l’égal du Père, dont il possède la divine nature; c’est le Fils unique de Dieu qui « s’est anéanti lui-même en devenant semblable aux hommes ». Ce n’est pas un autre non plus, c’est encore l’égal du Père dont il a la nature divine, qui « a humilié », non pas un étranger, mais « Lui-même, en devenant obéissant jusqu’à la mort et jusqu’à la mort de la croix (1) ».** “He is not talking about another, it is the equal of the Father, he has the divine nature is the only Son of God who” has destroyed itself by becoming like men “. This is not another either, it is still the equal of the Father which has the divine nature, which” humiliated “, not a foreigner, but” Himself, becoming obedient up 'to the death until the death of the cross **(1). Or, le Fils de Dieu n’a fait cela qu’autant qu’il est fils de l’homme et qu’il en a pris la nature. **But the Son of God has done this unless he is the son of man and it took nature. **
      De plus, si étant éternellement le Fils de Dieu, il n’était pas devenu fils de l’homme, l’Apôtre dirait-il aux Romains : « Choisi pour « l’Evangile de Dieu, qu’il avait promis auparavant par ses prophètes dans les saintes « Ecritures, touchant son Fils , qui lui est né de la race de David selon la chair (2)? **Moreover, while being the eternal Son of God, he had not become a son of man, the Apostle would he say to the Romans: "Selected for the 'Gospel of God, which he had previously promised by its prophets in the holy "scriptures, touching her son, who was born the race of David according to the flesh **(2)? » Voilà bien le. "That is it. Fils de Dieu, le Fils éternel de Dieu, devenu membre de la race de David selon la chair, sans en avoir toujours été membre. **Son of God, the eternal Son of God, joined the race of David according to the flesh, without ever having been a member. **
 
As a whole myenglish translation.

**From what embodied the Word of God has not lost what it was, many contend that we can not say that the Son of God became the Son of man. They are wrong, despite the uprightness of their intentions, and this way of speaking is consistent with the usual language of the Scriptures. **
**Let us rejoice, my brothers, that the good many people happiness and joy. This is not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who has done for us this day a sacred day, when became visible for the love of us, the invisible Creator of his mother was born from her womb without any fruitful injury to his virginal purity, because it remained in designing Madonna’s Son, the Virgin birth, the Virgin bearing the Virgin feeding her womb, the Virgin ever. **
**Why surprised by this, O mortal? It was only deigned to become a man God quit this way, and that format and one that was to give birth. Indeed, before he was born, and with his omnipotence, he (155) could arise while remaining what it was. He therefore created a mother while still in the bosom of the Father, and born of her, he continued to remain in Him. And how could he ceased to be God in becoming man, gave it to his mother does not cease to be virgin, while the child? Also in becoming flesh the Word did not die, he did point turned into flesh, but the flesh was united to the Word in order not to perish: and as there is in man a soul and a body, Christ is God and man at the times. . Thus man is God, and God is man, there is no confusion likely, but unity of person. Thus even the Son of God, which is coeternal his Father eternally born of him, began, was born of a Virgin, to be son of man, and thus that humanity has joined him in divinity, yet without forming a fourth person, and without adding to the Trinity. **
**Do not let the feeling of winning some spirits too little attention to the rule of faith and divine oracles of Scripture. The Son of man, they say, became the Son of God but the Son of God does not become a son of man. . In speaking so they feel good, but they do express themselves properly. What do they say, if not in human nature that could improve and that the divine nature could deteriorate? What is indisputable. However, although the divinity from deteriorating in any way, did the Word made flesh no less.The Gospel in fact does not say: The Word was made flesh, but "The Word became flesh"However, the Word is God, since it is written: "And the Word was God As for the flesh, does she not man, because Christ is not the point united without taking the soul at the same time? Also he says."My soul is sad unto death But if the Word is God and the flesh is the same man, that means: “The Word became flesh”, otherwise: God became man, otherwise even the Son of God became son of man, by taking a lower nature and without changing his divine nature by uniting what was not, without losing what it was? **
**How indeed we confessions, according to the rule of faith, we believe in the Son of **
**1. 1. Jean, I, 1, 14. John, I, 1, 14. — 2. - 2. Matt. Matt. XXVI, 38. XXVI, 38. **
**God who is born of the Virgin Mary, where the Virgin Mary was born, not the Son of God but the Son of man? What Christian would deny that she gave birth to the Son of man, but that God had made man, man has become God? For “the Word was God and the Word was made flesh.” Let us therefore the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, became a son of man by nature a slave; in remaining what it was, it became what it was, it began to be making less than the Father, while retaining what makes one with him. **
**If the Savior, which is always the Son of God, did not become truly son of man, how the Apostle would he say to him "Having the nature of God, he did not believe in being usurped equal to God but he has destroyed himself by taking the nature of a slave, becoming similar to men and being men everywhere outside? “He is not talking about another, it is the equal of the Father, he has the divine nature is the only Son of God who” has destroyed itself by becoming like men “. This is not another either, it is still the equal of the Father which has the divine nature, which” humiliated “, not a foreigner, but” Himself, becoming obedient up 'to the death until the death of the cross. But the Son of God has done this unless he is the son of man and it took nature. **
**Moreover, while being the eternal Son of God, he had not become a son of man, the Apostle would he say to the Romans: "Selected for the 'Gospel of God, which he had previously promised by its prophets in the holy "scriptures, touching her son, who was born the race of David according to the flesh. Son of God, the eternal Son of God, joined the race of David according to the flesh, without ever having been a member. **
**Moreover, if the Son of God did not make the son of man, "God would have sent his Son, made of a woman "Note that the latter term in Hebrew simply means sex without contesting the glory of virginity. **
**1. 1. Philip. II, 6, 7. Philip. II, 6, 7. — 2. - 2. Rom. Rom. I, 1-3. I, 1-3. — 3. - 3. Gal. Gal. IV, 4. IV, 4. **
**156 156 **
**been formed by a woman, if not by becoming the son of man when he was sent to him in the bosom of the Father is the Son of God? **
He was born of his father outside the course of time, and today it is born of his mother. After creating this day he chose to be established himself, as having created his mother he had chosen for her unborn. That day, incidentally, from which grew the day, does it not the mission of Christ, by whom every day is renewed in us the inner man. And since the eternal Creator deigned in time become a creature, it did not have the day of birth, a day indiquât what he had created over time?
 
I’m certainly not an expert on any of these languages, and I think our translations here may be a little shaky. However, they all do seem to be professing the same sentiment of Augustine’s: i.e. that Mary remained virginal before, during and after Christ’s Incarnation. And that is followed up with the something to the effect of “how can Jesus stop being God if even His Mother didn’t stop being a Virgin after His birth?”

This may attribute to why so many of the Reformers believed in the Perpetual Virginity.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
As a whole myenglish translation.

**From what embodied the Word of God has not lost what it was, many contend that we can not say that the Son of God became the Son of man. They are wrong, despite the uprightness of their intentions, and this way of speaking is consistent with the usual language of the Scriptures. **
Let us rejoice, my brothers, that the good many people happiness and joy. This is not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who has done for us this day a sacred day, when became visible for the love of us, the invisible Creator of his mother was born from her womb without any fruitful injury to his virginal purity, because it remained in designing Madonna’s Son, the Virgin birth, the Virgin bearing the Virgin feeding her womb, the Virgin ever.
Click to expand...
I broke this sentence word by word… and it states “to his” and that changes the make up…
atteinte à sa pureté virginale.
damage the son purity virginal.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I broke this sentence word by word… and it states “to his” and that changes the make up…
atteinte à sa pureté virginale.
damage the son purity virginal.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Augustine was trying to say Jesus was a virgin before, during, and after His birth???
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I broke this sentence word by word… and it states “to his” and that changes the make up…
atteinte à sa pureté virginale.
damage the son purity virginal.
Click to expand...
I was hoping someone with better French language skills would reply. I don’t know much French but, for what its worth, here’s my translation of the passage in question:
l’invisible Créateur de sa mère est né de son sein fécond sans aucune atteinte à sa pureté virginale; car elle est restée Vierge en concevant son Fils, Vierge en l’enfantant, Vierge en le portant, Vierge en le nourrissant de son sein, Vierge toujours. **…the invisible Creator of his mother was born from her fertile womb without any injury to her virginal purity; for she remained a Virgin in conceiving her Son, a Virgin in giving birth [to her Son] , a Virgin in carrying [her Son], a Virgin in feeding [her Son] at her breast, always a Virgin. **

My French dictionary says that vierge is French for a female virgin. It says that a male virgin in French would be puceau.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top