The virginal conception of Jesus is a dogma of faith. The Church is silent on what actually transpired during the process of birth.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 OP stated: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.
All three stories cited described births where the extraordinary child, rather than being born, comes out the abdomen under their own power. What it suggests is that this story about Jesus ‘‘passing through Mary like He walked through walls’’ has origin in universal myth.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?
So we’re not required to believe what the ECFs said and taught about this?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.
What part of her body do you think He passed through?Mary was the Immaculate conception and had a glorified body like Adam and Eve when God created them, although; she willed to look like everyone else. Jesus was not born in the usual way, but passed through her body like light through glass. Mary’s hymen remained intact before during and after the birth of Jesus.
This is the final word on the subject.
Hm. I think you’re actually right, in which case, I would have to seriously reconsider my statement on the part about pains (not about the mess, i.e. the natural birth which I still don’t read in that Catechism).I think the. Catechism of Trent declared that. Jesus was born miraculoulsy, not through the birth canal. What authority do they have and are we require to believe what THEY said?
Feels my latent feminist half bristle…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.
Refer to my post above for the correct answer.I think this will remain a mystery just like how Jesus was formed in the womb of the Blessed Mother without human seed. My personal opinion/suspicion is that Jesus was delivered just like we are but the Blessed Mother did not experience the pain of labor and delivery which was the consequence of original sin which she was created without, rather her labor pains came at His death where she became the spiritual mother of the living. I don’t think he flew out of her side or he crawled out by his own will although anything is possible for God. I think her will and his will were so united that she knew when the time came to deliver Jesus and cooperated with the divine again in allowing for a perfect birth. Eve never even experienced this.
Source, please?Mary was the Immaculate conception and had a glorified body like Adam and Eve when God created them, although; she willed to look like everyone else. Jesus was not born in the usual way, but passed through her body like light through glass. Mary’s hymen remained intact before during and after the birth of Jesus.
This is the final word on the subject.
You must document your source. The Catechism (the official teaching of the Catholic Church) states only that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, and her virginity is perpetual. There is no dogma on how this took place.Refer to my post above for the correct answer.
I do not believe she shared all of the same preternatural gifts as Adam and Eve, we know she was not exempt from sorrow.Refer to my post above for the correct answer.
Interesting in all of these discussions one way or another - that no one has really pointed to a specific reference. So far I have seen references to the ECFs (but not who or where) and to the Catechism of Trent (but not where).
I believe it would be helpful to the conversation if those mentioning these broad sources could be a bit more specific.
[home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm](http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm)
JRKH;13013488:
Interesting in all of these discussions one way or another - that no one has really pointed to a specific reference. So far I have seen references to the ECFs (but not who or where) and to the Catechism of Trent (but not where).
I believe it would be helpful to the conversation if those mentioning these broad sources could be a bit more specific.
Thank you. Finally, some scholarship on the issue.[home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm](http://www.home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm)
I’m not ready to retract my position yet, bit this gives me something to think about.
Faith1960;13014122:
You’re welcome. Doubt you’ll learn anything new that we haven’t already said.JRKH;13013488:
Interesting in all of these discussions one way or another - that no one has really pointed to a specific reference. So far I have seen references to the ECFs (but not who or where) and to the Catechism of Trent (but not where).
I believe it would be helpful to the conversation if those mentioning these broad sources could be a bit more specific.
Thank you. Finally, some scholarship on the issue.
I’m not ready to retract my position yet, bit this gives me something to think about.
It seems that we must believe that Mary remained a virgin during her birth.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?
Yes,but one must remember that Jesus was not conceived as we are either though that does not make Him any less human.It seems that we must believe that Mary remained a virgin during her birth.
Traditionally “virginity” is not primarily about having had sex or not but whether the hymen is intact. (This is also, obviously, the only interpretation of what remaining a virgin during the very act of giving birth might mean).
Also, “opening of the womb” excludes virginity - so much traditional teaching concentrated on explaining how Jesus didn’t exit the womb in the usual manner.
However the Church has never taught infallibly the exact manner in which this may have been achieved.
Up until more recent times the traditional “teaching” of the manner of birth was just as has been stated by others - it was miraculous and Jesus did not descend the birth canal.
(Interestingly Buddha 600 yrs earlier was born in the same way).
There are various apochryphal accounts of Jesus’s miraculous birth but I couldn’t find them online with a quick search. (The Proto Evangelium of James is one, but its a fairly non-magical account).
That is why the 3rd joyful mystery of the rosary is a “mystery.”
However this ancient understanding of physical integrity of the womb/hymen to preserve the doctrine of Mary’s absolute purity does seem strained and unnecessary to modern ears.
Also, more importantly, if Jesus was like us in all things but sin why would he not be born in the usual manner, truly and fully human.
Good observation!Yes,but one must remember that Jesus was not conceived as we are either though that does not make Him any less human.