K
kevinatunzu
Guest
Did the Blessed Virgin Mary experience the normal child-bearing pain?
- Status
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
From what I have heard, some of the Early Fathers write that she did not because labor pains are a punishment for sin and she never sinned. It may have been that Mary told them so herself (she may have mentioned it to John who told Polycarp, etc.) This however, is not dogma so I am personally skeptical on this point. I think that sin has caused the human body to change over the thousands of years since creation and so although she herself never sinned she had inherited a body that had changed because of sin and therefore she suffered labor pains. But that is only my opinion.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Not according to the Council of Trent:
“Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”
“Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Joe:
Thanks for the link. I believe that Mary, ever virgin, conceived Jesus of the Holy Ghost and gave birth to Him, and I know that this is dogma. However, is it also dogma that she gave birth without pain? Is everything a council says, even if it is only in passing, dogma?
Marsha
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer that question satisfactorily, but it does give me the occasion to clarify my source. The quote is actually from the Catechism of the Council of Trent (AKA the “Roman Catechism”), not the documents from the Council of Trent, itself. Sorry about that!
I would say that not everything a Council says is dogma (simply because not everything a Council says is dogmatic in nature), but everything a Council says is infallible. I’m not sure what that means for the Roman Catechism. If it’s like our current Catechism, the statements in the CCC are not infallible or dogmatic solely by virtue of being in the CCC. Their authority rests on the source documents (papal writings, documents from ecumenical councils, etc.) for each particular teaching.
To extend this to the Roman Catechism, this statement’s infallibility would rely on whatever the source was. I’d have to search to see if this is also addressed in the documents of Trent or not. I don’t know offhand.
C
Cavalier
Guest
If I may ask, then, if our Lady brought forth our Lord without pain, then how can we see her as the Woman in Revelations 12? After all, it is often argued, in support of the heavenly Queenship of our Lady, and her Assumption I believe as well, that this text is a reference to our Lady, and yet it says in verses 1-2:
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”
If then, this is a reference to our Lady, yet the Church teaches that she gave birth to our Lord without pain, then surely we must either believe that she did give birth in the normal way (which seems contrary to the Church’s teaching), or the idea that the Revelations text refers to her in chapter 12 is simply mistaken?
Or have I gone wrong somewhere?
Any help would be much appreciated!
Grace and Peace be with you, and fraternal affection,
The Cavalier
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”
If then, this is a reference to our Lady, yet the Church teaches that she gave birth to our Lord without pain, then surely we must either believe that she did give birth in the normal way (which seems contrary to the Church’s teaching), or the idea that the Revelations text refers to her in chapter 12 is simply mistaken?
Or have I gone wrong somewhere?
Any help would be much appreciated!
Grace and Peace be with you, and fraternal affection,
The Cavalier
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Cavalier:
Revelation is symbolic and prophetic. Both symbols and prophecy tend to be layered. Ergo the woman in Revelation is both Our Lady and the Church. Mary and the Church Triumphat stand upon the moon surrounded by stars. The woman bringing forth the child may be both Mary and the Church, but child may not be Jesus but may be the converts to the Church and hence Mary’s children as well. The pain of bringing forth these converts may be the pain of persecution. You see it isn’t cut and dried and I may just be babbling. But because we are dealing with symbol and prophecy this passage of Scripture does not negate the Council of Trent’s comment about Mary not having labor pains. So it just isn’t conclusive one way or the other.
S
StillWondering
Guest
The revelations quote instinctively remind me of Christ’s death on the cross and how much Mary whelped for her son. The revelations is a reflection of reality as I can see. The total redemptive suffering in Mary’s participation in parts of Christ’s ministry and life may be represented by the “wailed aloud in pain”.
At the same time, I do not know about Mary and labor pains. What made you wonder about it?
At the same time, I do not know about Mary and labor pains. What made you wonder about it?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Here’s how St. Thomas Aquinas answered the question in his Summa Theologica (ST III.35.6).
Keep in mind the general structure of the Summa:
Keep in mind the general structure of the Summa:
*]Question - Aquinas states the question
*]Objection(s) - Aquinas states the argument(s) of the opposition
*]On the contrary… - Aquinas appeals to authority (Scripture or the Early Church Fathers) to succinctly put down the opposition.
*]I answer that… - Aquinas gives his own brief answer to the question
*]Reply to Objection(s) - Aquinas responds separately to each specific objection
Article 6. Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?
Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man’s death was a result of the sin of our first parents, according to Genesis 2:17: “In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulgate: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die”; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Genesis 3:16: “In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children.” But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.
Objection 2. Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Isaiah 53:4: “Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows.” Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.
Objection 3. Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ’s birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother’s suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: “In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain.”
**I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man “was born into the world,” according to Isaiah 35:1-2: “Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.”
Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, “in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children,” the following are added: “and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power.” But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, “because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood.” Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.
**Reply to Objection 2. As “by His death” Christ “destroyed our death” [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother’s pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.
**Reply to Objection 3. We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself “wrapped up in swaddling clothes” the Child whom she had brought forth, “and laid Him in a manger.” Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): “No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. ‘With swaddling clothes,’ says he, ‘she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.’” These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Joe:
What was the apocryphal book that Aquinas was referring to?
Permit me an indelicate question, based on Aquinas’ comment “that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage”, how did Jesus leave Mary’s womb? When I was born I came through a certain passage and out a certain opening. It seems that Aquinas is saying that Jesus did not do it the same way I did. Please understand that I am not suggesting that we discuss the Holy Virgin’s anatomy any more explicitly than this.
What was the apocryphal book that Aquinas was referring to?
Permit me an indelicate question, based on Aquinas’ comment “that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage”, how did Jesus leave Mary’s womb? When I was born I came through a certain passage and out a certain opening. It seems that Aquinas is saying that Jesus did not do it the same way I did. Please understand that I am not suggesting that we discuss the Holy Virgin’s anatomy any more explicitly than this.
R
Roy5
Guest
Important Question?
Code:
Did Mary experience the pain of childbirth? I would assume so, but I am a Protestant who accepts neither the Immaculate Conception (defined in 1854) or the Assumption (defined in 1950). The Marian emphasis in Catholicism, as everyone knows, is a major difference between Catholics and Protestants,
But is this important? Isn't it a bit like debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin?
No one seems to have grabbled sufficiently with a question I have asked. If Mary is so central to Christian doctrine - "Queen of Heaven" etc - why don't all those epistles of St. Paul ignore her completely? He, after all, was the chief missionary apostle. His letters informed the early Christians as to belief and practice. Yet, her name doesn't come up once.
No offense, but that suggests to me that certain early Christians were heavily influenced by the goddess worship that was commonplace in the Greco-Roman world that was so powerful in the first two and three centuries. Among the influences of these pagan cults were: (1) excessive emphasis on Mariology; (2) saints gradually replaced many gods and goddesses of that era - a special saint for about everything; and (3) the adulation that had gone to the Roman emperor was largely transferred to the bishop of Rome.
Still, all Christians honor Mary, of course. She was, after all, the mother of Christ, and for that she deserves our deep gratitude. But that is far removed from the position Mary has come to occupy in Catholicism over the centuries.
But God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox - all of his children of every creed and color and country. Religion should be a bridge rather than a barrier between us. Jesus would want that.
S
Sunflower15
Guest
I truly understand your point, but ours is not for Mary’s sake…but for Jesus’ sake! Every tiny bit of detail about Mary’s bearing the infant Jesus is not about Mary, it is about the child being born - Jesus! And every detail about how this happened exactly is not about her but about HIM! All this DOES have very important bearing on how we understand HIS nature and prevent heresies from becoming widespread.
None of this has anything to do with Goddess worship because no Christian has ever worshiped Mary!
And, yes, she was the mother of Christ, but also of GOD in the 2nd Person of the Trinity WHO became Incarnate in Man…
The Athanasian Creed from the 3c. explains this clearly…to dispel both heresies:
- about the double nature of Jesus as fully Man and fully God
- about the Triune God in 3 Persons
The ‘visual code’ all Christians understood throughout persecution was the gesture of Jesus’ hand giving His blessing in the ancient icons, 2 fingers for His dual nature, 3 fingers for the Trinity…
S
Sunflower15
Guest
Precisely because our Marian devotion is NOT about Mary but about Jesus! Mary was never a priest! [an Apostle] The Apostles were Jesus’ priests. Jesus could have done things differently, but didn’t.
Her role was different. She represents humanity in perfect loving communion, obedience, trust, with GOD! To the point that she was the first Tabernacle of the LIVING WORD - Jesus -to Whom the Law [Moses] and the Prophets [Elijah] witnessed in the Transfiguration of the Lord in front of Peter, James & John.
Also, a lot of things were obvious to the disciples [as they still are to all Orthodox and Catholics even 2 millenniums later!
] so other things had to be taught…the not so obvious ones - the revolutionary ones that changed the world! The difficult to understand ones, such as the resurrection in soul and body, the how to live and continue the ministry of Jesus, etc…
N
nordskoven
Guest
Tender souls, the Virgin Mary’s bitter suffering was the birth of Christ unto His glorified Body in His crucifixion. Here is the prophetic word fulfilled as she is “pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed.” This is an explicit charism, a terrible gift, the exposure of all that is hidden in human thought, however monstrous or glorious. I urge all to pray for the Virgin to exercise this awesome gift on our behalf. God would not lightly, please believe, grant this unfathomable power as a parlor trick or secondary effect. It is central to the economy of salvation in ways I cannot imagine but in which I must hope and trust, even rely.
Immaculate Heart, Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the fire of love of your Son Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN
This prophecy and charism, her being pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, so perfectly defines and rewards her faithful witness that is more than what has been defined as “co-redemptrix.” Indeed, all must cooperate in Christ’s redemption. Apologists have mistakenly cast the Blessed Virgin as a type of co-priest, when Christ alone could act as Priest-Sacrifice, alone and forsaken, offering Himself to the Most High in reparation for sin. Mary is not sacrificing her Son in some kind of grisly child sacrifice before some cannibal rite. She is, rather, intimately enduring in her being His passage into life as having conquered death. The Mother of the Man of Sorrows is enduring the sorrow of birth that brings the revelation of thoughts, the Fruit of her Womb, Christ as Truth revealed. So John’s Apocalypse says after this horrifically painful birth the Child is taken up into Heaven, as I believe St. Maximillian Kolbe notes, denoting Her union with Christ’s laying down His earthly life to take up His heavenly life.
The major misfire of all goddess worship as skewing the role of the Virgin Mary is that the ancient world knew there would be a Mother & Child who would change the world. This is the stunning observation of D. James Kennedy’s “Gospel in the Stars” as he shows the names of the constellations and the names of the stars constituting the constellations very aptly describe the Gospel message. So the VIRGO and the LEO of the tribe of Judah were awaited universally as shown in this and other sources.
The goddess figures of old had two sources, both rather orthodox. Remember “gods” and “goddesses” were rather human–this was Noah and his wife generally, but also their children, the last long-lived generation that took on the air of immortals in ancient degenerate pop theology, so to speak. The other source is the terah figurines, woman images, that were part of the Woman & Seed culture of Genesis 3:15. The Woman, here used as a title as Christ exclusively used this Genesis 3:15 term for His mother,Woman, and her Seed, were a cultural and legal powerhouse in orthodox culture and were persecuted by demonic forces.
The Woman was turned into a temple prostitute and her children were slated for death after her husbandman-spouse was eliminated and the landmarks, borders of land inherited through the Woman, were thrown down by the bad guys. The little figurines were literal portraits of moms used as land titles for matrilineal land inheritance. That’s why Rachel stole the “idols” as her father Laban saw them. They were titles to her property inheritance being hoarded and alienated by her father per Hebrew scholar Savinah Teubal. As has been shown, these are literal, figurative portraits probably done by the mom’s themselves as the foreshortening of the bodies show. The taboo rooted in orthodoxy, i.e., only bad guys mess with the landmarks, probably became corrupted into making the little land title images into idols.
Mariology came into being in showing the nature of Christ as true God and true Man, not goddess worship! And the Early Church Fathers indeed saw the double role of Christ as heir of Adam’s mantle in His atonement for the Sin of Adam; and as Seed of the Second Eve, the Woman alone, not genetically spawned by a male but by the Holy Spirit, conquering Lucifer the Father of Lies and Murder in conquering death unto eternal life. May we all share His life.
Apocalpyse 12 prophecies of the great sign of the Woman clothed with the Sun appearing in the heavens, giving birth unto heavenly life, being shielded from persecution. Chapter 12 further notes her other children are persecuted! Well may we define ourselves as Christ did in His death on the Cross, fulfilling more than in His natural birth in His role as Seed of the Woman. Jewish through matrilineal inheritance, born through her as spouse of the Holy Spirit, reborn in her witness of His inheritance of His eternal kingdom. May we graciously persevere as His “faithful and true.”
Immaculate Heart, Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the fire of love of your Son Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN
This prophecy and charism, her being pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, so perfectly defines and rewards her faithful witness that is more than what has been defined as “co-redemptrix.” Indeed, all must cooperate in Christ’s redemption. Apologists have mistakenly cast the Blessed Virgin as a type of co-priest, when Christ alone could act as Priest-Sacrifice, alone and forsaken, offering Himself to the Most High in reparation for sin. Mary is not sacrificing her Son in some kind of grisly child sacrifice before some cannibal rite. She is, rather, intimately enduring in her being His passage into life as having conquered death. The Mother of the Man of Sorrows is enduring the sorrow of birth that brings the revelation of thoughts, the Fruit of her Womb, Christ as Truth revealed. So John’s Apocalypse says after this horrifically painful birth the Child is taken up into Heaven, as I believe St. Maximillian Kolbe notes, denoting Her union with Christ’s laying down His earthly life to take up His heavenly life.
The major misfire of all goddess worship as skewing the role of the Virgin Mary is that the ancient world knew there would be a Mother & Child who would change the world. This is the stunning observation of D. James Kennedy’s “Gospel in the Stars” as he shows the names of the constellations and the names of the stars constituting the constellations very aptly describe the Gospel message. So the VIRGO and the LEO of the tribe of Judah were awaited universally as shown in this and other sources.
The goddess figures of old had two sources, both rather orthodox. Remember “gods” and “goddesses” were rather human–this was Noah and his wife generally, but also their children, the last long-lived generation that took on the air of immortals in ancient degenerate pop theology, so to speak. The other source is the terah figurines, woman images, that were part of the Woman & Seed culture of Genesis 3:15. The Woman, here used as a title as Christ exclusively used this Genesis 3:15 term for His mother,Woman, and her Seed, were a cultural and legal powerhouse in orthodox culture and were persecuted by demonic forces.
The Woman was turned into a temple prostitute and her children were slated for death after her husbandman-spouse was eliminated and the landmarks, borders of land inherited through the Woman, were thrown down by the bad guys. The little figurines were literal portraits of moms used as land titles for matrilineal land inheritance. That’s why Rachel stole the “idols” as her father Laban saw them. They were titles to her property inheritance being hoarded and alienated by her father per Hebrew scholar Savinah Teubal. As has been shown, these are literal, figurative portraits probably done by the mom’s themselves as the foreshortening of the bodies show. The taboo rooted in orthodoxy, i.e., only bad guys mess with the landmarks, probably became corrupted into making the little land title images into idols.
Mariology came into being in showing the nature of Christ as true God and true Man, not goddess worship! And the Early Church Fathers indeed saw the double role of Christ as heir of Adam’s mantle in His atonement for the Sin of Adam; and as Seed of the Second Eve, the Woman alone, not genetically spawned by a male but by the Holy Spirit, conquering Lucifer the Father of Lies and Murder in conquering death unto eternal life. May we all share His life.
Apocalpyse 12 prophecies of the great sign of the Woman clothed with the Sun appearing in the heavens, giving birth unto heavenly life, being shielded from persecution. Chapter 12 further notes her other children are persecuted! Well may we define ourselves as Christ did in His death on the Cross, fulfilling more than in His natural birth in His role as Seed of the Woman. Jewish through matrilineal inheritance, born through her as spouse of the Holy Spirit, reborn in her witness of His inheritance of His eternal kingdom. May we graciously persevere as His “faithful and true.”
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Aquinas was referring to the Protevangelium Jacobi, which is better known to us as the Protoevangelium/Gospel of James.
I think your question is a good one and one that I have asked myself. Frankly, I haven’t really come across a response that answers the question to my satisfaction. The answer I have usually heard is that Jesus sort of miraculously appeared outside of Mary. Since everything about Jesus is miraculous, it is certainly possible that He could do that. But it does seem a bit weird to me.
Maybe I’m just not smart enough to get it. That’s certainly a strong possibility. Aquinas wasn’t right about everything, but he did spend more time reflecting on it than I have done. 
Basically, a lot of the debate in this regard had to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity. If, through the Annunciation, Christ did not violate Mary’s virginity by “opening the passage”, why would he do so in the Nativity? I think that’s basically the train of thought that leads people like Aquinas to conclude that it must have happened through some other way.
This does certainly get awkward to talk about at times!
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
My personal opinion is that Jesus was born just like you and I were, but he miraculously passed through the virginal barrier without breaking it. That seems a lot more likely to me, than Mary was lying in the stable pregnant and then poof she was lying in the stable with a baby in her arms. I think it was a matter that the Early Fathers and Aquinas were not comfortable with discussing the messy details of birth in the same paragraph with the Holy Virgin - something I can really appreciate.Basically, a lot of the debate in this regard had to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity. If, through the Annunciation, Christ did not violate Mary’s virginity by “opening the passage”, why would he do so in the Nativity? I think that’s basically the train of thought that leads people like Aquinas to conclude that it must have happened through some other way.
This does certainly get awkward to talk about at times!
and you can too,
A
allhers
Guest
This is worth reading, it was answered back in 2003 on EWTN’s Q. and A. section by Fr. John Echert…
At the primary level of symbolism, we can see this woman as representative of our Blessed Mother, who gave birth to our Lord. But in making this association, we do not apply every aspect or detail to her directly without qualification. For the suffering need not be a matter of physically giving birth, but of the sufferings the Mother of our Lord endured which reach a height as she stood beneath the cross upon which her Son died. Remember, the prophet Simeon had foretold that a sword of sorrow would pierce her heart. This allusion was not a matter of a physical sword but of spiritual and emotional suffering of a Mother, which is also physical.
In this part, he is speaking of what Pope Pius X In his encyclical letter
“Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum” wrote about it:
…John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=385115&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=Revelations+12&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
At the primary level of symbolism, we can see this woman as representative of our Blessed Mother, who gave birth to our Lord. But in making this association, we do not apply every aspect or detail to her directly without qualification. For the suffering need not be a matter of physically giving birth, but of the sufferings the Mother of our Lord endured which reach a height as she stood beneath the cross upon which her Son died. Remember, the prophet Simeon had foretold that a sword of sorrow would pierce her heart. This allusion was not a matter of a physical sword but of spiritual and emotional suffering of a Mother, which is also physical.
In this part, he is speaking of what Pope Pius X In his encyclical letter
“Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum” wrote about it:
…John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=385115&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=Revelations+12&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
J
Joe_5859
Guest
That makes more sense to me. Perhaps that’s what the Early Fathers and Aquinas meant.My personal opinion is that Jesus was born just like you and I were, but he miraculously passed through the virginal barrier without breaking it. That seems a lot more likely to me, than Mary was lying in the stable pregnant and then poof she was lying in the stable with a baby in her arms. I think it was a matter that the Early Fathers and Aquinas were not comfortable with discussing the messy details of birth in the same paragraph with the Holy Virgin - something I can really appreciate.
S
Sunflower15
Guest
Could it simply mean that the ‘passage’ was ‘closed as it was before’, after His birth? That shouldn’t be too ‘impossible’ for God, right?
And as for pain, if martyrs supposedly experience an ‘ecstasy’ that somehow takes some of the pain away so that they have sort of a ‘heavenly vision’ during their torments, [a very classical view], why could Mary not go through something similar? It’s a matter of the right combination of hormones for the physical part and some great ‘heavenly vision’ for the spiritual aspect…
So, maybe it’s something less extreme than we imagine.
A sidenote, when I had my second son, I had a hemorrhage and frankly, was ‘slipping’ away… and I remember being VERY tired and wanting to go to sleep…
I closed my eyes and could not feel any more pain or tiredness…I saw a beautiful green garden with a bright/white/soft light shining from above…I kept walking and felt SO HAPPY! I was somehow made to go back but DID NOT WANT TO! Then, I felt like I ‘fell’ into a ‘humid foul smelling brownish swamp-like’ place and felt a LOT of pain & tiredness…
Now, I probably was dying, but came back as they put an ‘IV’ on me…and everything seemed/smelled like a swamp even though I was in a cold, dry, disinfected, hospital room…
All I’m saying is that maybe Our Lady experienced something ‘other-wordly’ during her delivery at the stable…
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
I could easily believe that explanation.
- Status