D
dts
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
It also appears in some of the early Eastern fathers.
Is Mary's "temporal death" in her Dormition inconsistent with a painless Nativity?
- Status
It also appears in some of the early Eastern fathers.
R
RyanL
Guest
Actually, I have never seen any infallible teaching about whether the Blessed Virgin “died” prior to her assumption. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t - the Magisterium is silent. If you would assert otherwise, cite a reference (and also cite something which says “Dormition” is what you say it is).
Says what? If Mary was allowed a peaceful repose while being assumed, befitting the dignity and grace of her position, how is that necessarily inferior to a fiery chariot? You have made no case for this!
No, it doesn’t appear that way.
Again, it has not been shown that “flat-lining” is a Catholic teaching. Thus, the rest of your argument does not follow.
Yes, the Woman is Mary. Yes, the Woman is the Church. Yes, the Woman is Israel. In the last two interpretations, the “labor pains” are not physical - why must it be in the first? Why could it not be spiritual pains, as it clearly must be in the second two cases?
You have some 'splaining to do.
God bless,
RyanL
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Reminder: Topic is the birth of Our Lord. NOT the Dormition.
R
RyanL
Guest
Did Jesus suffer temporal death? Did He have Original Sin?
Is this what your argument hinges on? Mary must have had Original Sin in order for her to have labor pains, which would logically follow if she did, in fact, have Original Sin? If so, I can argue for the Immaculate Conception much easier than arguing against the occasional writing from a Pope (read: not binding or infallible - remember, Gregory the Great correllated Mary Magdelene with the prostitute in a homily, but this was never a teaching of the Church) about the death of the Blessed Mother.
Also, counter to your Turtledoves argument.
Finally, you have not cited where the Magisterium infallibly teaches that Mary did not have labor pains.
God bless,
RyanL
B
BibleReader
Guest
Michael Francis:
Argument: Beamer-downers argue that the Revelation 12:2 “woman” who wails with labor pain as she gives birth to Jesus CAN’T be Mary, because (1) Mary was immaculately conceived, free of the stain of Original Sin, and (2) it was Original Sin which generated labor pain.
I respond, (1) Mary was immaculately conceived, free of the stain of Original Sin, and (2) Original Sin generated deathg, but (3) Mary still experienced death to the extent of “dormition,” which Pope Pius XII and Pope Adrian I equate with “temporal death.”
If Mary, despite her Immaculate Conception, was still subject to the temporal death – dormition – generated by Original Sin, why should anyone conclude that Mary, because of her Immaculate Conception, was free of labor pain?
Thank you for the reminder. But, the two are related.
Argument: Beamer-downers argue that the Revelation 12:2 “woman” who wails with labor pain as she gives birth to Jesus CAN’T be Mary, because (1) Mary was immaculately conceived, free of the stain of Original Sin, and (2) it was Original Sin which generated labor pain.
I respond, (1) Mary was immaculately conceived, free of the stain of Original Sin, and (2) Original Sin generated deathg, but (3) Mary still experienced death to the extent of “dormition,” which Pope Pius XII and Pope Adrian I equate with “temporal death.”
If Mary, despite her Immaculate Conception, was still subject to the temporal death – dormition – generated by Original Sin, why should anyone conclude that Mary, because of her Immaculate Conception, was free of labor pain?
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Related to some degree yes…but not so that they belong on the same thread. Stay with the birth of Christ or I’ll have to split the thread off.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hi, Ryan.
The Church TEACHES that Jesus suffered temporal death. If He did not, there is no Redemption. Sorry.
You’re still falling all over yourself, making panicky “fine distinctions.”
Why not disappear for a few weeks, consider all six arguments, above, in a relaxed, commonsensical way, and then come back and discuss.
Look at yourself – though you argue the following…
Actually, I have never seen any infallible teaching about whether the Blessed Virgin “died” prior to her assumption. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t - the Magisterium is silent.
…and though it turns out that you are wrong…
- In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."
You are trying to win, not trying to be correct. And in the process, YOU IGNORED EVEN WHAT PIUS XII EXPRESSLY TAUGHT IN HIS ENCYCLICAL DECLARING THE ASSUMPTION DOGMA.
Be dispassionate in your analysis. A Rube Goldberg machine of hair-splitting “fine distinctions” will convince no one…
images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nycenet.edu/DIS/mst/images/handout1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.nycenet.edu/DIS/mst/rube/handout1.html&h=318&w=559&sz=29&tbnid=63M5DvoKKmwJ:&tbnh=74&tbnw=131&hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRube%2BGoldberg%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
Forget the “fine distinctions.”
B
BibleReader
Guest
Just ask yourself, (1) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible assert that Jesus was a “king” and that no king has any different birth? Yes.
“Is a beaming-down ‘different’? Yes.”
(2) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible assert that Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem FOR THE PURPOSE OF making the sacrifice which cleanses the woman who has given birth from her ‘flow of blood’? Yes.
“Does a bloodless birth contradict this? Yes.”
(3) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible assert that the mother of Jesus – given the title “woman,” the same title given to Mary in John’s own gospel two times – wailed aloud in pain as she labored? Yes.
“Is a laborless, pain-free mystical release of Jesus from her body inconsistent with this? Yes.”
(4) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible use the exact same Greek words, GENNAO and TIKTO, to describe the non-immaculate sinner Elizabeth giving birth, that describe the immaculate non-sinner Mary giving birth? Yes.
“Does this gently suggest – especially the word TIKTO, which seems to refer to ‘breaking water’ – that they gave birth the same way? Yes.”
(5) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible assert that repeatedly prophesize the birth of Jesus in the Old Testament with the words ‘the first BORN male who opened the womb,’ and expressly connect Jesus to those prophecies in Luke’s gospel? Yes.
"If a baby ‘beams down’ out of a womb, is he being “born” in the sense meant by the Magisterium in the Old Testament verses?
“Probably not. The colt of an a s s, the physical example used in the Old Testament of a first ‘born,’ never beamed-down out of its mother.”
(6) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible teaching assert that Mary, despite her immaculate conception, suffered ‘temporal death’ – death which Adam and Eve would not have suffered but for the Original Sin?
"Yes. See Para. 17 of Pius XII’s Assumption Encyclical.
“So, why should Mary be free of labor pains?”
No matter what, the Magisterium is contradicting itself on this issue.
Pope Liberius contradicted himself on the theology bearing on Arianism…he condemned his own prior declaration. Perhaps the same thing is happening on the issue of Mary’s giving irth?
Forget the “fine distinctions.”
“Is a beaming-down ‘different’? Yes.”
(2) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible assert that Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem FOR THE PURPOSE OF making the sacrifice which cleanses the woman who has given birth from her ‘flow of blood’? Yes.
“Does a bloodless birth contradict this? Yes.”
(3) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible assert that the mother of Jesus – given the title “woman,” the same title given to Mary in John’s own gospel two times – wailed aloud in pain as she labored? Yes.
“Is a laborless, pain-free mystical release of Jesus from her body inconsistent with this? Yes.”
(4) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible use the exact same Greek words, GENNAO and TIKTO, to describe the non-immaculate sinner Elizabeth giving birth, that describe the immaculate non-sinner Mary giving birth? Yes.
“Does this gently suggest – especially the word TIKTO, which seems to refer to ‘breaking water’ – that they gave birth the same way? Yes.”
(5) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible Catholic Bible assert that repeatedly prophesize the birth of Jesus in the Old Testament with the words ‘the first BORN male who opened the womb,’ and expressly connect Jesus to those prophecies in Luke’s gospel? Yes.
"If a baby ‘beams down’ out of a womb, is he being “born” in the sense meant by the Magisterium in the Old Testament verses?
“Probably not. The colt of an a s s, the physical example used in the Old Testament of a first ‘born,’ never beamed-down out of its mother.”
(6) "Does the Magisterium’s own infallible teaching assert that Mary, despite her immaculate conception, suffered ‘temporal death’ – death which Adam and Eve would not have suffered but for the Original Sin?
"Yes. See Para. 17 of Pius XII’s Assumption Encyclical.
“So, why should Mary be free of labor pains?”
No matter what, the Magisterium is contradicting itself on this issue.
Pope Liberius contradicted himself on the theology bearing on Arianism…he condemned his own prior declaration. Perhaps the same thing is happening on the issue of Mary’s giving irth?
Forget the “fine distinctions.”
B
BibleReader
Guest
Michael Francis:
But I would like your opinion to the question I ask…
Go ahead, Michael Francis, kill the discussion.
But I would like your opinion to the question I ask…
B
BibleReader
Guest
Since my argument is not ABOUT the dormition of Mary, but about how the dormition of Mary is inconsistent with the argument that Mary suffered no labor pains in giving birth to Jesus, I’m going to give the thread a less misleading title.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
As I have understood this issue, there seems to be no contradiction between Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her death.
Mary’s death (“Dormition”) was seen as her **conformity **to her Son’s death on the cross. The explanation being that Mary, as a perfect disciple, would die in imitation of her Lord.
I dont have Ott’ Fundamentals in front of me but here is a purpoted quote from it:
Mary’s death (“Dormition”) was seen as her **conformity **to her Son’s death on the cross. The explanation being that Mary, as a perfect disciple, would die in imitation of her Lord.
I dont have Ott’ Fundamentals in front of me but here is a purpoted quote from it:
Does that solve your problem BibleReader (or at least one of your objections)?
B
BibleReader
Guest
Many “in-partu-ites” – like “beamer-downers,” a nickname I give to those who maintain that Jesus wasn’t technically “born” like a mortal man, but instead mystically passed-out of Mary’s womb in a painless process that broke no tissues – argue that (1) Mary CAN’T have suffered labor pains, because (2) labor pains are the result of Original Sin, Genesis 3:16, and (3) Mary was immaculately conceived.
But is this conclusion valid?
Death was the other great consequence of Original Sin. Had Adam and Eve not perpetrated the Original Sin, they would have experienced no form of death at all.
Now, despite the fact that Mary was immaculately conceived, Pope Pius XII, in *Munificentissimus Deus, *the encyclical which declared the Assumption Dogma, expressly adopted as part of his encyclical Pope Adrian I’s statement that Mary suffered “temporal death” – surely something Adam and Eve would not have suffered but for Original Sin…
To put it another way, those “beamer-downers” who fall all over themselves trying to deny that the wailing-in-labor-pain Revelation 12:2 “woman” is Mary are wrong.
But is this conclusion valid?
Death was the other great consequence of Original Sin. Had Adam and Eve not perpetrated the Original Sin, they would have experienced no form of death at all.
Now, despite the fact that Mary was immaculately conceived, Pope Pius XII, in *Munificentissimus Deus, *the encyclical which declared the Assumption Dogma, expressly adopted as part of his encyclical Pope Adrian I’s statement that Mary suffered “temporal death” – surely something Adam and Eve would not have suffered but for Original Sin…
- In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."
To put it another way, those “beamer-downers” who fall all over themselves trying to deny that the wailing-in-labor-pain Revelation 12:2 “woman” is Mary are wrong.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
As I have understood this issue, there seems to be no contradiction between Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her death.
Mary’s death (“Dormition”) was seen as her **conformity **to her Son’s death on the cross. The explanation being that Mary, as a perfect disciple, would die in imitation of her Lord.
I dont have Ott’ Fundamentals in front of me but here is a purpoted quote from it:
Mary’s death (“Dormition”) was seen as her **conformity **to her Son’s death on the cross. The explanation being that Mary, as a perfect disciple, would die in imitation of her Lord.
I dont have Ott’ Fundamentals in front of me but here is a purpoted quote from it:
Does that solve your problem BibleReader (or at least one of your objections)?
B
BibleReader
Guest
Verbum Caro:
No. The opposite. Mary’s pain and suffering were also consistent with her Son’s pain and suffering.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Fair enough.
If you have access to Ott you may find that he cites sources to support this explanation. The point being that your objection (re: Dormition inconsistent with Immaculate Conception) is not new, and that there has been consideration given to this and a response formulated.
If you have access to Ott you may find that he cites sources to support this explanation. The point being that your objection (re: Dormition inconsistent with Immaculate Conception) is not new, and that there has been consideration given to this and a response formulated.
B
batteddy
Guest
Alright, first of all, being an “im-partu-ite” is NOT radical. That Mary’s hymen did not break in birth is a well understood in the Church.
Secondly, Jesus did not necessarily “beam down” because of this. Although some mideval theologians speculated that Jesus passed out of the womb “like light through glass” this probably isn’t true. Probably the hymen miraculous stretched to accomodate Jesus in a natural, regular birth without rupturing the physical evidence of Mary’s virginal integrity.
Thirdly, theologians hold that Mary was not made ritually impure by the birth of Jesus. Her Purification was an act of obedience to not draw attention to herself and to fullfill the Old Law. Likely, Jesus and Mary were at all times ritually clean. Why the birth was ritually clean, we can only speculate. Perhaps because there was miraculously no blood. It was perhaps a very clean and straightforward birthing process, without being messy.
Fourth, Mary had an immaculately concieved Soul…but she still took her flesh from a Son of Adam and Daughter of Eve. Her body was obviously still subject to the weaknesses of a fallen human nature…hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and death. The Immaculate Conception means that she was concieved ALREADY in a state of sanctifying grace. Never for a moment was she out of a full relationship with God. Not a stain of sin ever touched her. But her body was still mortal like Jesus’s and our own.
Fifth, though theologians speculated that she felt no labor pains, this does seem inconsistant. She probably did feel labor pains even if her hymen was allowed to stretch so as to not be ruptured…she still had a baby coming down the birth canal!
Sixth, in this way, Mary also died. Her dormition has long been celebrated in the Church and it is consistant with her mortal body…which was not glorified until her Ressurection and Assumption. Some say she died of love. But perhaps she was martyred, maybe even secretly by poison. She earned the Merits of Martyrdom by standing at her Son’s cross on Calvary…but perhaps the enemies of the Church killed her too…she seems an obvious target. Either way, she rose from the dead before corruption set in and was Assumed into heaven.
Seventh, Elijah and Enoch were NOT assumed into heaven in the same way Mary was. They never died, their bodies was never glorified, they would not enter the Beatific Vision before the death of Christ, and they are said to come again at the end of time to die a witness for the faith and rise like everyone else. In all probability their “translation” simply put them in suspended animation somewhere to be preserved until the last day.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that one of the *traditional *Catholic signs of the end times (none of that nonsense from unapproved apparitions about Chastisements and Three Days of Darkness) is the:
“Return of Enoch and Elijah. The belief that these two men, who have never tasted death, are reserved for the last times to be precursors of the Second Advent was practically unanimous among the Fathers, which belief they base on several texts of Scripture. (Concerning Elijah see Malachi 4:5-6; Ecclesiasticus 48:10; Matthew 17:11; concerning Enoch see Ecclesiasticus 44:16.)”
Elijah and Enoch never tasted death, were never glorified, and were merely “translated” not assumed into “heaven” in the true sense of the word like only Mary and Jesus have been. They are being preserved somewhere for the End of Days.
Secondly, Jesus did not necessarily “beam down” because of this. Although some mideval theologians speculated that Jesus passed out of the womb “like light through glass” this probably isn’t true. Probably the hymen miraculous stretched to accomodate Jesus in a natural, regular birth without rupturing the physical evidence of Mary’s virginal integrity.
Thirdly, theologians hold that Mary was not made ritually impure by the birth of Jesus. Her Purification was an act of obedience to not draw attention to herself and to fullfill the Old Law. Likely, Jesus and Mary were at all times ritually clean. Why the birth was ritually clean, we can only speculate. Perhaps because there was miraculously no blood. It was perhaps a very clean and straightforward birthing process, without being messy.
Fourth, Mary had an immaculately concieved Soul…but she still took her flesh from a Son of Adam and Daughter of Eve. Her body was obviously still subject to the weaknesses of a fallen human nature…hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and death. The Immaculate Conception means that she was concieved ALREADY in a state of sanctifying grace. Never for a moment was she out of a full relationship with God. Not a stain of sin ever touched her. But her body was still mortal like Jesus’s and our own.
Fifth, though theologians speculated that she felt no labor pains, this does seem inconsistant. She probably did feel labor pains even if her hymen was allowed to stretch so as to not be ruptured…she still had a baby coming down the birth canal!
Sixth, in this way, Mary also died. Her dormition has long been celebrated in the Church and it is consistant with her mortal body…which was not glorified until her Ressurection and Assumption. Some say she died of love. But perhaps she was martyred, maybe even secretly by poison. She earned the Merits of Martyrdom by standing at her Son’s cross on Calvary…but perhaps the enemies of the Church killed her too…she seems an obvious target. Either way, she rose from the dead before corruption set in and was Assumed into heaven.
Seventh, Elijah and Enoch were NOT assumed into heaven in the same way Mary was. They never died, their bodies was never glorified, they would not enter the Beatific Vision before the death of Christ, and they are said to come again at the end of time to die a witness for the faith and rise like everyone else. In all probability their “translation” simply put them in suspended animation somewhere to be preserved until the last day.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says that one of the *traditional *Catholic signs of the end times (none of that nonsense from unapproved apparitions about Chastisements and Three Days of Darkness) is the:
“Return of Enoch and Elijah. The belief that these two men, who have never tasted death, are reserved for the last times to be precursors of the Second Advent was practically unanimous among the Fathers, which belief they base on several texts of Scripture. (Concerning Elijah see Malachi 4:5-6; Ecclesiasticus 48:10; Matthew 17:11; concerning Enoch see Ecclesiasticus 44:16.)”
Elijah and Enoch never tasted death, were never glorified, and were merely “translated” not assumed into “heaven” in the true sense of the word like only Mary and Jesus have been. They are being preserved somewhere for the End of Days.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hi, batteddy.
**Alright, first of all, being an “im-partu-ite” is NOT radical. That Mary’s hymen did not break in birth is a well understood in the Church.
Secondly, Jesus did not necessarily “beam down” because of this. Although some mideval theologians speculated that Jesus passed out of the womb “like light through glass” this probably isn’t true. Probably the hymen miraculous stretched to accomodate Jesus in a natural, regular birth without rupturing the physical evidence of Mary’s virginal integrity.
**
I don’t know if I can readily put my hands on the document, but I am certain that the Church has condemned the “stretchy hymen” argument.
The problem isn’t in just that aspect of Mary’s personal region.* The Church maintains that no flesh in Mary was ruptured. Therefore, the amniotic sac around Jesus was not broken – Mary did not “break water,” according to the “in-partu-ite” position.
*I despise talking about Mary’s personal region in a special way, which is one of the reasons why I despise the “in-partu-ite” position. The “in-partu-ites” imply deeply bizarre things about Mary’s personal region, such as the “stretchy hymen” argument, and then hypocritically condemn those who condemn them for doing this, as obscenely and blasphemously discussing Mary’s personal region!!!
The truth is that Mary simply gave birth in the normal mortal way. Read the Magisterium’s Bible. It claims as much.
Thirdly, theologians hold that Mary was not made ritually impure by the birth of Jesus. Her Purification was an act of obedience to not draw attention to herself and to fullfill the Old Law. Likely, Jesus and Mary were at all times ritually clean. Why the birth was ritually clean, we can only speculate. Perhaps because there was miraculously no blood. It was perhaps a very clean and straightforward birthing process, without being messy.
You are wrong, my friend. A vaginal birth is per se denied by the “in-partu-ites.” They stoutly maintain that NO TISSUES WERE BROKEN. That leaves only one way to get out of the completely circumferencing amniotic sac – mystically.
**Fourth, Mary had an immaculately concieved Soul…but she still took her flesh from a Son of Adam and Daughter of Eve. Her body was obviously still subject to the weaknesses of a fallen human nature…hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and death. The Immaculate Conception means that she was concieved ALREADY in a state of sanctifying grace. Never for a moment was she out of a full relationship with God. Not a stain of sin ever touched her. But her body was still mortal like Jesus’s and our own.
**
I agree.
Fifth, though theologians speculated that she felt no labor pains, this does seem inconsistant. She probably did feel labor pains even if her hymen was allowed to stretch so as to not be ruptured…she still had a baby coming down the birth canal!
Sorry, friend, but the “in-partu-ites” absolutely deny that labor pains or v a birth canal were involved.
Are you starting to believe that they are radical?
I’m not sure that you’re entitled to be so specific about Elijah and Enoch. Luke 9:31 says that Elijah and Moses (who was apparently resurrercted before the general resurrection, Jude 1:9, perhaps so that he could appear at the Transfiguration) also appeared “in glory.” That sounds suspiciously like a “glorified body” to me.
**Alright, first of all, being an “im-partu-ite” is NOT radical. That Mary’s hymen did not break in birth is a well understood in the Church.
Secondly, Jesus did not necessarily “beam down” because of this. Although some mideval theologians speculated that Jesus passed out of the womb “like light through glass” this probably isn’t true. Probably the hymen miraculous stretched to accomodate Jesus in a natural, regular birth without rupturing the physical evidence of Mary’s virginal integrity.
**
I don’t know if I can readily put my hands on the document, but I am certain that the Church has condemned the “stretchy hymen” argument.
The problem isn’t in just that aspect of Mary’s personal region.* The Church maintains that no flesh in Mary was ruptured. Therefore, the amniotic sac around Jesus was not broken – Mary did not “break water,” according to the “in-partu-ite” position.
*I despise talking about Mary’s personal region in a special way, which is one of the reasons why I despise the “in-partu-ite” position. The “in-partu-ites” imply deeply bizarre things about Mary’s personal region, such as the “stretchy hymen” argument, and then hypocritically condemn those who condemn them for doing this, as obscenely and blasphemously discussing Mary’s personal region!!!
The truth is that Mary simply gave birth in the normal mortal way. Read the Magisterium’s Bible. It claims as much.
Thirdly, theologians hold that Mary was not made ritually impure by the birth of Jesus. Her Purification was an act of obedience to not draw attention to herself and to fullfill the Old Law. Likely, Jesus and Mary were at all times ritually clean. Why the birth was ritually clean, we can only speculate. Perhaps because there was miraculously no blood. It was perhaps a very clean and straightforward birthing process, without being messy.
You are wrong, my friend. A vaginal birth is per se denied by the “in-partu-ites.” They stoutly maintain that NO TISSUES WERE BROKEN. That leaves only one way to get out of the completely circumferencing amniotic sac – mystically.
**Fourth, Mary had an immaculately concieved Soul…but she still took her flesh from a Son of Adam and Daughter of Eve. Her body was obviously still subject to the weaknesses of a fallen human nature…hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and death. The Immaculate Conception means that she was concieved ALREADY in a state of sanctifying grace. Never for a moment was she out of a full relationship with God. Not a stain of sin ever touched her. But her body was still mortal like Jesus’s and our own.
**
I agree.
Fifth, though theologians speculated that she felt no labor pains, this does seem inconsistant. She probably did feel labor pains even if her hymen was allowed to stretch so as to not be ruptured…she still had a baby coming down the birth canal!
Sorry, friend, but the “in-partu-ites” absolutely deny that labor pains or v a birth canal were involved.
Are you starting to believe that they are radical?
I’m not sure that you’re entitled to be so specific about Elijah and Enoch. Luke 9:31 says that Elijah and Moses (who was apparently resurrercted before the general resurrection, Jude 1:9, perhaps so that he could appear at the Transfiguration) also appeared “in glory.” That sounds suspiciously like a “glorified body” to me.
B
batteddy
Guest
“the amniotic sac around Jesus was not broken – Mary did not “break water,” according to the “in-partu-ite” position.”
Well, then I agree that “in-partu-ite” position is unreasonable. The amniotic sac has nothing to do with virginity. But the hymen does have to do with physical virginity.
Plus, the amniotic sac has the DNA of the BABY, so technically it would be Jesus’s flesh…Mary’s flesh still wouldn’t have been broken.
Well, then I agree that “in-partu-ite” position is unreasonable. The amniotic sac has nothing to do with virginity. But the hymen does have to do with physical virginity.
Plus, the amniotic sac has the DNA of the BABY, so technically it would be Jesus’s flesh…Mary’s flesh still wouldn’t have been broken.
B
batteddy
Guest
Furthermore, the amniotic fluid would not be ritually unclean. It is mainly water.
Amniotic fluid could only have been as unclean as urine was, and urinating did not make one ritually impure. (That amniotic fluid is no more unclean than urine is especially true assuming it was relatively clean amniotic fluid and had not been polluted by any early release of meconium)
Niether was the umbilical cord or placenta coming out after birth unclean, as there is nothing that would make it unclean.
What made a woman unclean for 40 days after birth was clearly the flow of lochia and mucus discharge, which theologians teach Mary did not have.
Anything that did not compromise her virginity, or her ritual purity…probably did occur in order to make Jesus’s birth as much like ours as a God-Man’s possibly can be.
Her virginity in partu (a de fide dogma) probably required that her hymen must have stretched.
And her ritual purity required that she did not have a flow of lochia or mucus (and, I believe, both for reasons of ritual purity and to symbolize the Uniqueness of Jesus, she probably did not menstruate)…
But other than that, Jesus probably did pass through the birth canal, did break his amniotic sac, and the placenta and umbilical cord did come out.
Just no breaking of the hymen or flow of locia or mucus.
Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote the following:
“The cavalier divorce of “biology” and theology omits precisely man from consideration; it becomes a self-contradiction insofar as the initial, essential point of the whole matter lies precisely in the affirmation that in all that concerns man the biological is also human and especially in what concerns the divinely-human nothing is “merely” biological. Banishment of the corporeal, or sexual, into pure biology, all the talk about the “merely biological,” is consequently the exact opposite of what faith intends. For faith tells us of the spirituality of the biological as well as the corporeality of the spiritual and divine. On this point the choice is between all or nothing. The attempt to preserve a spiritual, distilled remainder after the biological element has been eliminated denies the very spiritual reality which is the principal concern of the faith in the God become flesh.”
We cannot seperate a “symbolic” virginity or ritual purity from the reality.
I believe what I have wrote above, that his birth was normal except that it didn’t violate Mary’s virginity or ritual purity…but I also respect the opinions of those who hold that Jesus miraculous “passed out” without rupturing anything because this could be held as a symbol of how he came out of the Tomb or came into the Upper Room after his Ressurection.
Amniotic fluid could only have been as unclean as urine was, and urinating did not make one ritually impure. (That amniotic fluid is no more unclean than urine is especially true assuming it was relatively clean amniotic fluid and had not been polluted by any early release of meconium)
Niether was the umbilical cord or placenta coming out after birth unclean, as there is nothing that would make it unclean.
What made a woman unclean for 40 days after birth was clearly the flow of lochia and mucus discharge, which theologians teach Mary did not have.
Anything that did not compromise her virginity, or her ritual purity…probably did occur in order to make Jesus’s birth as much like ours as a God-Man’s possibly can be.
Her virginity in partu (a de fide dogma) probably required that her hymen must have stretched.
And her ritual purity required that she did not have a flow of lochia or mucus (and, I believe, both for reasons of ritual purity and to symbolize the Uniqueness of Jesus, she probably did not menstruate)…
But other than that, Jesus probably did pass through the birth canal, did break his amniotic sac, and the placenta and umbilical cord did come out.
Just no breaking of the hymen or flow of locia or mucus.
Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote the following:
“The cavalier divorce of “biology” and theology omits precisely man from consideration; it becomes a self-contradiction insofar as the initial, essential point of the whole matter lies precisely in the affirmation that in all that concerns man the biological is also human and especially in what concerns the divinely-human nothing is “merely” biological. Banishment of the corporeal, or sexual, into pure biology, all the talk about the “merely biological,” is consequently the exact opposite of what faith intends. For faith tells us of the spirituality of the biological as well as the corporeality of the spiritual and divine. On this point the choice is between all or nothing. The attempt to preserve a spiritual, distilled remainder after the biological element has been eliminated denies the very spiritual reality which is the principal concern of the faith in the God become flesh.”
We cannot seperate a “symbolic” virginity or ritual purity from the reality.
I believe what I have wrote above, that his birth was normal except that it didn’t violate Mary’s virginity or ritual purity…but I also respect the opinions of those who hold that Jesus miraculous “passed out” without rupturing anything because this could be held as a symbol of how he came out of the Tomb or came into the Upper Room after his Ressurection.
- Status