Tis_Bearself
Patron
Please provide the source of this alleged “dogma”.
As far as I know, the Church has never definitively pronounced on this issue, and it’s certainly not “dogma”.
Last edited:
- Status
As far as I know, the Church has never definitively pronounced on this issue, and it’s certainly not “dogma”.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Correct. Mary being personally free from original sin, as well as personally sinless in life, never excluded her from suffering just as a normal human woman in this world would suffer.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Miraculous “physical integrity” of Mary remaining a virgin after birth does not mean she gave birth without any pain, nor does it mean that Jesus would have had to have been born in some manner other than the normal way babies come down the birth canal. God who can do all things could have easily preserved Mary’s physical integrity while having Jesus be born in the normal way. We also have no idea if God’s way of letting Mary give birth caused her physical pain or not. She could very well have suffered painful contractions of labor prior to Jesus being born.
Last edited:
R
redal
Guest
It is?..not on any credible list of dogma I have seen…please provide a source, because, btw, I think its not accurate.
V
Vico
Guest
Physical integrity means like light through glass.Vico:
Miraculous “physical integrity” of Mary remaining a virgin after birth does not mean she gave birth without any pain, nor does it mean that Jesus would have had to have been born in some manner other than the normal way babies come down the birth canal. God who can do all things could have easily preserved Mary’s physical integrity while having Jesus be born in the normal way. We also have no idea if God’s way of letting Mary give birth caused her physical pain or not. She could very well have suffered painful contractions of labor prior to Jesus being born.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Even if we accept the “light through glass” interpretation, which many do not (the document says “Physical Integrity”, not “Light through Glass”, which I believe came from the writings of a later Pope), it still does not mean Mary definitely did not suffer labor pains, or pains of some sort.
We have had this discussion many times before on CAF. The dogma is that Mary’s virginity was preserved while Jesus was born. No one is disputing that here.
How God accomplished this from a physical standpoint, and whether Mary felt labor pain, etc is not dogma. Even those who defend the “Mary had no pain” viewpoint, like Tim Staples, agree that the Church has not definitively spoken to the issue.
It is a pious tradition to believe that she did not have pain, not dogma.
We have had this discussion many times before on CAF. The dogma is that Mary’s virginity was preserved while Jesus was born. No one is disputing that here.
How God accomplished this from a physical standpoint, and whether Mary felt labor pain, etc is not dogma. Even those who defend the “Mary had no pain” viewpoint, like Tim Staples, agree that the Church has not definitively spoken to the issue.
It is a pious tradition to believe that she did not have pain, not dogma.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, opinion only, no definition so no denial, rather allowing for that opinion.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Sure. I don’t have any problem with people expressing this belief about Mary had no pain. I remember reading the “passed through Mary’s body like light through a window” teaching myself as a child in a pious traditional book. (Since I was about age 6 at the time - I was a very advanced reader - this caused me to picture baby Jesus as sort of “beaming out” of Mary’s stomach and rematerializing on the outside, like on “Star Trek” which was popular on network TV then. Which very well might have been just how it occurred.)
We just have to be careful what we call “dogma”, as if it’s dogma, that means all members of the church must believe/ accept it in order to be in the Church.
We just have to be careful what we call “dogma”, as if it’s dogma, that means all members of the church must believe/ accept it in order to be in the Church.
Last edited:
R
redal
Guest
This is the point. If I were reading the intent of this thread to be is the feeling of labor pains by the BVM dogma, I’d say this thread has run its course and should simply be shut down…if the further discussion is desired, it should be opened under a new thread.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The light through glass analogy, among others, is found in the Roman Catechism:
S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.
That work of St. Ambrose says:
The CCC is more to the point:
The quote in the above passage is from Vatican II’s Lumen gentium. If we look at the footnote for its statement, we see the following reference:
S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.
That work of St. Ambrose says:
Also cited is the 3rd canon of the Lateran Council of 649, which Pope Martin I gave universal force:
The Tome of St. Leo is also cited:
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think the liturgy has more authority than you give it credit. We worship in spirit and truth, not error. The law of prayer is the law of belief. As the CCC notes:
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
The OP @Stradabolt has only the one initial post.
G
goout
Guest
This question is a good occasion to note that the Catholic Church does not read scripture verses like fundamentalists, who read passages in isolation from the whole context, and in isolation from the wisdom of the Church, and in narrow modern contexts rather than accounting for the original context, and fails to take account of the various types of literature in the bible. The bible is a collection of books of various genres.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I don’t understand why it would have to be dogma that Mary’s virginity was preserved even though she gave birth. One becomes a ‘non-virgin’ by having sex, not by giving birth.
Although the two are inextricably linked (aside from the one major exception), they’re not the same mechanism.
Although the two are inextricably linked (aside from the one major exception), they’re not the same mechanism.
Last edited:
J
jf.1022
Guest
All good stuff and classic Catholic exegesis of the question. Something else to chew on would be a more modern minority view of Genesis 3:16-17.
If you look up the Hebrew the word translated “pain” here is itstsabon which can mean pain or toil. This word is actually used again in the next verse in reference to Adam: “…in toil (itstsabon) you shall eat it’s yield.”
If we continue to look at the Hebrew then the word translated “childbearing” or “childbirth” is literally “pregnancy and/or conception (herayon).”
So the idea may be that women will toil with conception and carrying children just as man toils to get plants to grow from the ground.
I realize that Jerome didn’t understand it that way as seen in the Clementine Vulgate’s translation of this word in two different ways: dolore in verse 16 and laboribus in verse 17, but it’s something to think about.
If you look up the Hebrew the word translated “pain” here is itstsabon which can mean pain or toil. This word is actually used again in the next verse in reference to Adam: “…in toil (itstsabon) you shall eat it’s yield.”
If we continue to look at the Hebrew then the word translated “childbearing” or “childbirth” is literally “pregnancy and/or conception (herayon).”
So the idea may be that women will toil with conception and carrying children just as man toils to get plants to grow from the ground.
I realize that Jerome didn’t understand it that way as seen in the Clementine Vulgate’s translation of this word in two different ways: dolore in verse 16 and laboribus in verse 17, but it’s something to think about.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
As discussed in detail on another thread recently, the alleged revelations of Blessed Anne Emmerich are unreliable because they are thought by the Vatican to have likely been written partly by Clemens Brentano rather than Blessed Anne.
Also, even if they came from Blessed Anne, they’re unapproved private revelations and we are not permitted to post material from unapproved private revelations (Content rule 6 in the Forum FAQ).
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I think hundreds and thousands of years ago, people had a much more mechanical concept of “virginity” than we do today. Nevertheless, in the case of Mary, I can see why belief in physical integrity would be important from a standpoint of removing any and all doubt.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m not denying that. However, I am denying what is being asserted here and which is not taught by the Church: liturgy doesn’t transmit doctrine.
There’s only so far I’m willing to go with this argument since, of course, it’s in the catechism. Interestingly, in the source for the CCC (the Latin), “die” and “suffer” have distinct footnotes. The footnote for suffering is Genesis 3:16. Two things come to mind:
- this speaks only to suffering in childbirth
- it speaks of an increase in toil, not an origin of it in sin.
- on one hand, if we take “suffering” out of the equation, there’s still “pain” and “hunger”. Are we asserting that Adam and Eve never experienced hunger prior to the fall?
- we might have to talk a bit about his assertion of Mary’s experience of “suffering”. How do we understand this in light of the fact of her Immaculate Conception and sinless life?
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
This should make for an interesting discussion at the very least.Genesis315:
I’m not denying that. However, I am denying what is being asserted here and which is not taught by the Church: liturgy doesn’t transmit doctrine.
There’s only so far I’m willing to go with this argument since, of course, it’s in the catechism. Interestingly, in the source for the CCC (the Latin), “die” and “suffer” have distinct footnotes. The footnote for suffering is Genesis 3:16. Two things come to mind:
But, that being said, I’m willing to step back from the “suffering” part of my response to @CatholicSooner. However, we’re going to have to talk a bit about his assertions:
- this speaks only to suffering in childbirth
- it speaks of an increase in toil, not an origin of it in sin.
- on one hand, if we take “suffering” out of the equation, there’s still “pain” and “hunger”. Are we asserting that Adam and Eve never experienced hunger prior to the fall?
- we might have to talk a bit about his assertion of Mary’s experience of “suffering”. How do we understand this in light of the fact of her Immaculate Conception and sinless life?
E
EndTimes
Guest
Because giving birth is painful.
- Status