F
Faith1960
Guest
I read the Church Fathers saying Jesus was born without passing through the birth canal, but instead passed through Mary like He walked through walls. Are we, as Catholics, required to believe this?
- Status
M
Murmurs
Guest
I sincerely hope not!
While it’s reasonable to suppose that Mary had a relatively trouble- and pain-free experience in giving birth to Jesus (I can’t believe God would have allowed it more uncomfortable than absolutely necessary!), I would view it as impugning the human-ness of both Jesus and His mother for Him to be born anything less than the regular human way. For the sake of Our Lady who has had enough sorrows in the last 2000 years, I just hope He wasn’t a breach.
Sorry I’m being facetious, that was just my instinctive reaction! I don’t actually know but I don’t believe that this patristic view has doctrinal status. It would seem very fitting in some ways but clearly very very contrary to the ordinary experience of childbirth (the miracle is Jesus’ conception rather than His very ordinary, indeed lowly, birth). The Fathers were writing a fairly long while after the event (and, lest we forget, all men!), and I’m not aware of anything particularly conclusive from Scripture that might point to it, or foretell its happening in some way.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Does it matter?
I’ve read that some saint said that in one instant she held a perfect Child in her arms.
Doesn’t shake my faith. She clearly was pregnant…“with child”. Everyone who saw her could see that she was physically pregnant. The innkeeper was moved to offer them
the stable.
It’s one of those things that I personally don’t get hung up on. There’s plenty of evidence that Jesus was the Son of God in Scripture.
I’ve read that some saint said that in one instant she held a perfect Child in her arms.
Doesn’t shake my faith. She clearly was pregnant…“with child”. Everyone who saw her could see that she was physically pregnant. The innkeeper was moved to offer them
the stable.
It’s one of those things that I personally don’t get hung up on. There’s plenty of evidence that Jesus was the Son of God in Scripture.
B
Bonnie
Guest
My feeling, too. It’s just another way to take away her humanity. How can we relate to her as Mother if she never was a real, human woman?
H
hazcompat
Guest
Catechism of the Catholic Church
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).
Peace
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).
Peace
H
hazcompat
Guest
Matthew 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Peace
Peace
A
Antegin
Guest
Actually, that story is reminiscent of pagan hallowed birth stories. In roman myth, Romulus and Remus came through the side of their mother Rhea Silvia who conceived by Mars and had to stay a Vestal Virgin. In the Iroquois Creation Story, Earth Mother gave birth to twins. The elder one (creator) was born. The second one (trickster) tore out of Earth Mother’s side, killing her. In the Japanese myths, Izanami died when her son burned his way out of her stomach.
This sounds pagan to me. Can you site the source?
This sounds pagan to me. Can you site the source?
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’m not disputing that. What I want to know is if we must believe Jesus miraculously appeared outside Mary’s body.
F
Faith1960
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Are you talking to me? I can’t find it now. Just Google “Church Fathers in partu” it might come up. If not, try “church fathers Jesus born birth canal”.
B
Bonnie
Guest
I forgot to reply to your question - no, we don’t have to believe it. But you may if you want.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks Bonnie…I don’t.
K
KP3243
Guest
I think the way Scott Hahn explained this is that because Mary was sinless, Jesus’ birth was like light passing through a window. No other woman had or will have this experience and how exactly it Jesus was delivered will probably remain a mystery. I personally believe since it makes the most sense to me that being sinless and being the New Eve she didn’t suffer birth pains at Jesus birth but she suffered them at his death when the birth of a new creation came by this death and Resurrection where she became the spiritual mother of all the living, Revelation backs this up.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
One is a virgin if one has never had sexual relations–and that is true for both males and females. Even if Mary gave birth the normal way that does not mean she did not remain a virgin. Men don’t have hymens, yet they can be virgins. If a little girl accidentally tears her hymen, she is still a virgin. Breaking a hymen does not determine virginity.
The Church does not teach anything but that she was a virgin at Jesus’ conception, remained one during his birth, and remained a virgin perpetually. We do not have to subscribe to legends and myths about this, but if you believe something else happened, you are free to believe it, but not insist others do. I accept what the Church actually teaches about this, but believe Jesus was born in the normal way. There is no inconsistency in this.
The Church does not teach anything but that she was a virgin at Jesus’ conception, remained one during his birth, and remained a virgin perpetually. We do not have to subscribe to legends and myths about this, but if you believe something else happened, you are free to believe it, but not insist others do. I accept what the Church actually teaches about this, but believe Jesus was born in the normal way. There is no inconsistency in this.
K
KP3243
Guest
I am sorry none of the examples provided sound like the birth of Jesus. Jesus didn’t have a twin, Satan is not an equal with Jesus and the Blessed Mother didn’t die during child birth. The Blessed Mother freely gave her consent and willed Jesus’ human nature into existence and cooperated with the Holy Spirit.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks CB. So we don’t have to believe Jesus passed through Mary like He passed through walls after His resurrection, even though the ECFs say so?
C
cjforJesus
Guest
Very good post and explanation.
Since Jesus conception was by the Holy Spirit I see no reason why His birth would be otherwise. I believe St Bridget used the same description as like light passing through glass.
Labor involves powerful contractions of the uterus in order to dilate the cervical opening and facilitate birth. In most women these contractions can be quite painful.Since the transgression of the woman is the reason these pains are greatly multiplied it would make no theological sense for Mary,who was sinless,to experience pain.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I have no problem with her delivering without pain, but don’t believe He crawled out of her stomach and just appeared.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
I doubt He crawled out of her uterus. Since He is God incarnate we do not know how He chose to be delivered.
It is not necessary to believe it was miraculous though it is stated that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin before during and after Jesus was born.
I intensely dislike that imagery, as if somehow Jesus and Mary were above the human experience, including giving birth and being born. Jesus was not glorified yet and as such had the fullness of the human condition, including its limitations.
I am of the belief that Jesus was born as the rest of us: in blood and pain.
The in partu part is an affirmation of Mary’s continuing virginity. That doesn’t change even if our Lord was born in the natural human manner. Virginity is lost through sexual intercourse, not childbirth.
To be honest, I don’t know why Catholics and mystics have this hang-up over Christ’s birth. It contributes nothing to the deposit of faith and at the very least, sounds way out there. What should matter to us is what is stated in the Creed: he was born of the virgin Mary and became man. Leave the details to God.
I am of the belief that Jesus was born as the rest of us: in blood and pain.
The in partu part is an affirmation of Mary’s continuing virginity. That doesn’t change even if our Lord was born in the natural human manner. Virginity is lost through sexual intercourse, not childbirth.
To be honest, I don’t know why Catholics and mystics have this hang-up over Christ’s birth. It contributes nothing to the deposit of faith and at the very least, sounds way out there. What should matter to us is what is stated in the Creed: he was born of the virgin Mary and became man. Leave the details to God.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
The details of His birth are unknown but it is a requirement of faith that Jesus was conceived miraculously.
The “hang up” regarding His birth has to do with the logical conclusion of His miraculous conception. It is not part of the faith to believe His birth was miraculous though it is required to believe His conception was.
The birth of Adam was without pain and was a miracle of God’s creation so I see no reason why Jesus incarnation,the new Adam and beginning of a new creation, would be any less miraculous.
- Status