Did the Blessed Virgin Mary give birth to Jesus Christ painlessly?

[Fiasco]

But there is not even any mention about labour pains or the lack of them in the catechesis. Besides, don’t you think it is a little weird that the gospels wouldn’t mention the miracle of his birth at all if this was the case? The circumstances of his conception are explained in detail (which means Mary told some people about it, since she was the only one there).

The gospels are Christ-centred, so Our Lord’s public ministry is emphasised.
The circumstances of His conception are explained in detail because Matthew and Luke (guided by the Holy Spirit) wanted to hammer home the Truth that Our Lord was miraculously conceived. Seeing it was no normal conception, that HAD to be emphasised. This Man was no ordinary itinerant rabbi.

Mary may have personally given Luke extra details, seeing he came along “after the dust had settled”.

I don’t think it will be declared dogma (it if would be though, I am sure good reasons will be provided and I will believe it). I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Good reasons have ALREADY been provided. Did you try that link, or at least read those 3 lines quoted from the article?

Did Mary Experience Labor Pains? - Catholic Exchange:

catholicexchange.com/did-mary-experience-labor-pains

That link works from here, but having zero faith in my ability to provide links for others, i wish someone would confirm that it (along with other links elsewhere) works!

I’m not sure everyone believe in the perpetual virginity. There was probably such trafitions very early on, but since the gospel also mentions Jesus’ siblings there was quite a discussion about how to reconcile those two.

Anyone baptised into the early Church probably would have been told the truth at the right time, not that there weren’t other concerns at the start. After all, Mariology had to have time to grow. * The baptised so-called brethren of Jesus would have made sure the truth was known.
Of course, “outsiders” would have been free to come to their own conclusions.

So it is very strange to claim that Helvidius was the one that came up with the idea since it can very easily be assumed by reading the gospels

Since “novel” means “new”, presumably Helvidius was the first one to spread his idea around in a VERY public way…in writing.

(I do agree that siblings should be interpreted as siblings and that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but it was not unreasonable for people to believe that Mary and Joseph had more children).

That’s more than reasonable for non-believers, but not necessarily for the believers.

After all of that: i’m only an “amateur Catholic” with no formal teachings to fall back on, and who agonises, sometimes for hours with some posts, like this one, over what to say.

It’s mentally fatiguing!*

 

[nodito]

There is no anatomically virginity.

This, 100 times.

 

[Vico]

Hey, everyone. I have been told that it is a doctrine of the Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ in a painless manner. Is this true? If so, how could it be true? From what I understand, she is said to have given birth painlessly because she had no stain of sin from the moment of conception. Well, Jesus Christ did not have any stain of sin from the moment of his conception either but He still suffered the pain of crucifixion. Can someone please help me to understand this?

Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma shows the statement of Pope Paul IV on the perpetual virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary. Pain is not specifically mentioned, and some have concluded it was painless because there was not loss of virginal integrity, but without a specific declaration on painlessness.

[From the ordinance of Paul IV, “Cum quorundam,”* Aug. 7, 1555]

993 Since the depravity and iniquity of certain men have reached such a point in our time that, of those who wander and deviate from the Catholic faith, very many indeed not only presume to profess different heresies but also to deny the foundations of the faith itself, and by their example lead many away to the destruction of their souls, we, in accord with our pastoral office and charity, desiring, in so far as we are able with God, to call such men away from so grave and destructive an error, and with paternal severity to warn the rest, lest they fall into such impiety, all and each who have hitherto asserted, claimed or believed that Almighty God was not three in persons and of an entirely uncomposedand undivided unity of substance and one single simple essence of divinity; or that our Lord is not true God of the same substance in every way with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or that He was not conceived of the Holy Spirit according to the flesh in the womb of the most blessed and ever Virgin Mary, but from the seed of Joseph just as the rest of men; or that the same Lord and our God, Jesus Christ, did not submit to the most cruel death of the Cross to redeem us from sins and from eternal death, and to reunite us with the Father unto eternal life; or that the same most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of the omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.

 

[Evan]

In several posts Genesis has been quoted that Eve’s suffering would be multiplied after her expulsion from Eden. It did in not say she would, now, suffer from childbirth, but that her pain would be multiplied.

The multiple of zero is zero. So even in eden, Eve would not have be zero pain, only less pain than is typical today. So, if Mary did not suffer, Genesis does not assist in proving this hypothesis.

 

[tuffsmurf]

The gospels are Christ-centred, so Our Lord’s public ministry is emphasised.
The circumstances of His conception are explained in detail because Matthew and Luke (guided by the Holy Spirit) wanted to hammer home the Truth that Our Lord was miraculously conceived. Seeing it was no normal conception, that HAD to be emphasised. This Man was no ordinary itinerant rabbi.

Mary may have personally given Luke extra details, seeing he came along “after the dust had settled”.

Good reasons have ALREADY been provided. Did you try that link, or at least read those 3 lines quoted from the article?

Did Mary Experience Labor Pains? - Catholic Exchange:

catholicexchange.com/did-mary-experience-labor-pains

That link works from here, but having zero faith in my ability to provide links for others, i wish someone would confirm that it (along with other links elsewhere) works!

Anyone baptised into the early Church probably would have been told the truth at the right time, not that there weren’t other concerns at the start. After all, Mariology had to have time to grow. * The baptised so-called brethren of Jesus would have made sure the truth was known.
Of course, “outsiders” would have been free to come to their own conclusions.

Since “novel” means “new”, presumably Helvidius was the first one to spread his idea around in a VERY public way…in writing.

That’s more than reasonable for non-believers, but not necessarily for the believers.

After all of that: i’m only an “amateur Catholic” with no formal teachings to fall back on, and who agonises, sometimes for hours with some posts, like this one*, over what to say.

It’s mentally fatiguing!

But Jesus’ birth is described in the gospel of Luke! It states that Mary gave birth, which to me seems to indicate a normal birth. Many of the arguments in favor of Mary not going through labour seems to come from an erroneous understanding of biology (that there are physical proofs of virginity, that the hymen is something that breaks and so on).

I guess the people who became christians around 30 AD knew Jesus hadn’t any siblings, but how about the ones who became christians 150 years after that? Many of them probably didn’t even think about if he had siblings or not (many christians today don’t) and since the bible uses the word sibling it wouldn’t be strange if some of them believed he had siblings. I know that classical greek has very general terms for various kinship relations, but the latin terms are much more specific, just as english.

 

[Fiasco]

But Jesus’ birth is described in the gospel of Luke! It states that Mary gave birth, which to me seems to indicate a normal birth.

Luke was concerned with emphasising Our Lord’s miraculous conception. He wasn’t concerned with the details of how He became visible (outside His mother). Luke had to use SOME word(s) to indicate His Birth.

I guess the people who became christians around 30 AD knew Jesus hadn’t any siblings, but how about the ones who became christians 150 years after that?

At least word of mouth?

Anyway, not being a Church historian or a Mariologist, i can’t answer questions which any other peasant can’t answer.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Luke was concerned with emphasising Our Lord’s miraculous conception. He wasn’t concerned with the details of how He became visible (outside His mother). Luke had to use SOME word(s) to indicate His Birth.

At least word of mouth?

Anyway, not being a Church historian or a Mariologist, i can’t answer questions which any other peasant can’t answer.

Luke apparently thought it was important to mention that Jesus was placed in a crib, for example. If that detail was important enough to be mentioned, don’t you think a miracolous birth would have been to?

 

[Fiasco]

Luke apparently thought it was important to mention that Jesus was placed in a crib, for example. If that detail was important enough to be mentioned, don’t you think a miracolous birth would have been to?

It wasn’t a crib; it was a manger: a feed box for animals. And that leads to a profound Truth.

Jesus says: “I am the Bread of Life.” (John 6:35)
“Bethlehem” means “house of bread”.
The Bread of Life was born in the House of Bread, and laid in a feed box.

 

[Evan]

Historically, crib (as when the King James bible was translated, crib meant Manger.

Old English (in the sense ‘manger’), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch krib, kribbe and German Krippe

 

[Fiasco]

Historically, crib (as when the King James bible was translated, crib meant Manger.

Old English (in the sense ‘manger’), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch krib, kribbe and German Krippe

These days, at least to most English-speaking people, the word “crib” suggests some sort of little cot for a baby…or a small Nativity tableau.
But, even the Bishop Challoner-revised (1749-1752) Douay Rheims Bible says “manger”.

i didn’t feel like getting into yet another “debate” with tuffsmurf about the meaning of the receptacle into which the Bread of Life was placed by His mother. The back-and-forth between the two of us has become a mental strain.

The bolded sentence was the vital bit.

 

[tuffsmurf]

These days, at least to most English-speaking people, the word “crib” suggests some sort of little cot for a baby…or a small Nativity tableau.
But, even the Bishop Challoner-revised (1749-1752) Douay Rheims Bible says “manger”.

i didn’t feel like getting into yet another “debate” with tuffsmurf about the meaning of the receptacle into which the Bread of Life was placed by His mother. The back-and-forth between the two of us has become a mental strain.

The bolded sentence was the vital bit.

English is not my first language so crib perhabs is the wrong word.
I’m sorry if I have been offensive in some way, it is certainly not my intent.

 

[Fiasco]

English is not my first language so crib perhabs is the wrong word.
I’m sorry if I have been offensive in some way, it is certainly not my intent.

Sorry!

You certainly weren’t offensive! And as you say your location is Europe, i guessed that language was causing a communication problem.
i have a mental problem which causes frayed nerves.

The main thing is that both of us must have learned something from this thread.

So:
Best wishes!

 

[Good_Fella]

Can someone please help me to understand this?

Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel: God with us.
Isaiah 7, 14

Before she was in labor she gave birth;
before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son
Who ever heard of such a thing, or who ever saw the like?
Can a land be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment
Yet Zion was scarcely in labor when she bore her children.
Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth,
and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD.
Or shall I who bring to birth yet close her womb? says your God.
Isaiah 66, 7-9

That Jesus would be born miraculously just as he had been conceived by the will of God, and Mary remain a virgin during the birth of Jesus (virginitas (name removed by moderator)artu), was foretold by the prophet Isaiah: ‘Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive (παρθένος) in the womb, and shall bring forth (τέξεται) a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.’ (7:14). This passage from the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. The Hebrew word harah can mean either conceive (become pregnant) or be pregnant (be with child). Isaiah means “to become pregnant”. The Septuagint, which Matthew cites in his gospel (1:23) to show that Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ real father, verifies this. The meaning of the Greek word εννοώ is “to conceive” strictly in the sense of “becoming pregnant” or “cause to be pregnant”. Since virgins do not naturally conceive offspring, it follows that the prophet is speaking of a supernatural conception. Included with Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus is her virginal act of giving birth to him. Isaiah says that a virgin shall “bring forth a son.” The Greek word*τέξεται (“bring forth” or “cause to be born”) is translated from וֹי ל דת (u·ildth: literally “one giving birth”), which is the intended meaning of the verb “to bear” (yalad) in the Hebrew OT. Hence, this verse has to do with two events: the conception and birth of Jesus. The conception of Jesus was virginal, since Mary’s womb hadn’t been opened by the seed of man. The act of Mary giving birth was virginal, since Christ hadn’t opened his mother’s womb when he was born. Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ’s birth as well as at his conception. This is confirmed by another prophecy of Isaiah (66:7): ‘Before she travailed (ta hil), she brought forth (ya-la-dah); before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.’

What the prophet says in 7:14 about the Virgin Birth reflects what God intends to reveal in 66:7; Mary’s physical virginal integrity was never violated on either occasion, neither when she conceived Jesus nor when she gave birth to her Divine Son. We read in the English version of the Septuagint - the Greek translation from the Hebrew: ‘Before she that travailed brought forth, before the travail-pain came on, she escaped it and brought forth a male.’ (Isaiah 66:7). The original Hebrew expression for “she was delivered” is malat (maw-lat’), also meaning “she escaped it” as we have in the Greek translation. The above passage sheds light on the full meaning and implications of the Hebrew phrase חֵ֛בֶללָ֖הּ וְהִמְלִ֥יטָה זָכָֽר׃ (she was delivered) in Isaiah 66:7 found in the Masoretic text. Any woman who has given birth (active voice) is delivered from or has been released from the travails of the act of child birth (passive voice). She causes this release or escape from travail by giving birth. So, what the Hebrew phrase implies is that Mary has escaped from going into labour and experiencing pain before she should when giving birth.

The Alexandrian Jews who translated the Hebrew into Greek understood the connotations of this expression. Thus, we have: “she escaped it and brought forth.” The woman is the physical cause of giving birth (active voice), but God’s intervention is the cause of when she shall give birth – that is before she goes into labour and the pains set in (passive voice). Mary miraculously gives birth to the male child by Divine intervention. God releases her from the prospect of going into labour and experiencing the pangs of childbirth, which she can have no control over and is unable to escape from causatively until she gives birth, unless God causes her to give birth beforehand.

Moreover, the Hiphil stem can be used to express a causative type of action with an active voice. It is causative of the Qal stem of a verb. In other words, the subject causes the action of the verb, but the subject does not directly perform the act. In many instances, we can take the Qal form of the verb and precede it with ‘to cause to’ or ‘to make to’. For example: ‘David reigned over Israel.’ (Qal stem with David as the subject of the verb); ‘God caused David to reign over Israel (Hiphil stem of the same verb with God as the subject).’ The woman causes the action of giving birth, but she does not directly perform the action of giving birth before her time comes. It is God who directly performs or causes the act of the woman giving birth before she goes into labour and the pains come. It is by a miracle or Divine intervention that the Virgin shall not only conceive, by no seed of man, but also give birth to a Son before she naturally goes into labour and her pain sets in - that is by the will of God.

Please visit my website.

blessedaboveallwomen.co/2017/05/03/before-she-was-in-labor-she-gave-birth/

:heaven:
.

 

[Good_Fella]

Does it really matter?

Yes it does! With respect to Leviticus 12:2-4 and Luke 2:22-24, a built-in component in the mother’s ritual impurity was the symbolic responsibility of bringing another sinner into the world. So, if Mary were actually in need of being purified after giving birth to Jesus, we can only infer that she gave birth to a potential sinner. However, it was Eve who gave birth to her firstborn Cain. Mary (the New Eve) was chosen by God to bring forth the new Adam, who came to reconcile the world to God and regenerate mankind with His saving grace. Further, ritual impurity (niddah) was essentially more of a spiritual and mental condition (tumah) than a physical one which prevented the mother from entering the temple court. So, Mary did not necessarily have to discharge blood during the birth of Jesus to be rendered ritually impure. We read in the Niddah 27b: “According to the order of all the uncleanness mentioned in regard to the menstruating woman (נִדָּה), she becomes unclean on account of giving birth. [This is true] even if the womb opens without [any issue of] blood.” The concept of the mother’s tumah has to be taken into account.

A ritual bath was also part of the woman’s purification preparation to re-enter the sanctuary. The Jewish Mishnah records that full immersion for both men and women in the Temple mikvah (pool for ritual purification) was necessary before entering the courtyard to offer sacrifices (Mishnah: Yoma, 3.3). Mary was expected to ritually bathe in the mikvah before presenting her purification sacrifices. What she was purified of, according to Hebrew thought, was what the issuance of blood involved, that is not having full volition to submit to the will of God and being unable to commune with Him while under the trauma of naturally giving birth. The burnt offering (olah) was an expression of desiring to commune with God. The Hebrew word implies ascending from the profane to the sacred. Procreation itself was viewed as holy, but it was also recognized as being tainted by the natural birth process which was profane. The physical corruption involved in the natural birth process was evocative of death which was a penalty for sin. Yet Mary did not conceive and bear Jesus by the will of man. It was by the will of the Father and through the power of the Holy Spirit that the divine Word became man. Mary couldn’t have experienced tumah and needed being purified while giving birth to the Son in close communion with God and by His will. Nor would God allow her to be distant from Him during the act of giving birth to His Son. By giving birth to Jesus, Mary drew closer to God. The holy Child she bore did in fact sanctify her in the womb even more, while he himself had experienced none of the corruption involved in a natural birth. The birth of Jesus was miraculous and virginal. “Neither will you allow your holy one to see corruption.” (Ps.16:10).

Moreover, if Jesus had been conceived and born naturally, he also would have been rendered ritually impure and in the state of tumah until his circumcision, which prepared the way for his presentation to God. The rites of purification and circumcision were intended as monuments testifying to the taint of human spiritual imperfection and sin inherited by every child descended from Adam. These rites did not necessarily apply to Jesus and Mary, but as a religiously devout Jewish mother who was obligated to observe the law, Mary humbly and devotedly submitted herself and her Son to these legal requirements under which they were born in obedience to God who instituted the Mosaic law. Mary submitted to the ritual of purification after childbirth because as a Jewish mother she was expected to formally consecrate her Son to God. Jesus submitted to circumcision (a purification ritual symbolizing being made spiritually clean) for the same reason (Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4). He should not serve the Father without first having consecrated himself to Him in humble human obedience to His will, albeit his natural holiness.

Both Jesus and Mary would have been in need of purification if in fact she had conceived and given birth to him by Joseph’s seed, for then the law would have actually applied to them. Again, we see in Leviticus 12:2 of the Hebrew OT: ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives (כִּי תַזְרִיע ) and gives birth to a male (לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה, ) she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.’ As we have seen above, the verb “conceives” can be paraphrased “having received seed”. In this case, the verb phrase Taz ri a תַזְרִ֔יע (“having received seed”) is derived from the 3 consonant root word zera (seed) which can mean either “offspring” or “verile semen”, the latter being the intended definition in Leviticus. The law does apply to offspring of human paternal origin. Jesus was the seed or “offspring” of his mother (Gen.3:15), so the law could not be applied to him; whereas his mother did not beget him by having received the seed (verile semen) of her husband. Joseph did not open Mary’s womb with his seed. Thus there should be no need for her to be cleansed either by having conceived or given birth to Jesus by the will of the Father and the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit. The Psalmist prophesies that Mary’s womb shall not be opened when she gives birth to Jesus.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psalm 2, 7

:heaven: