Mary and birth pains

[rwoehmke]

So when we say Jesus was human like us in all ways but sin we also must say that his conception and birth were also different? If Mary couldn’t feel pain, how did she cope with hot stoves and sand burs etc.? I am beginning to wonder as well how real is the model of the Holy Family for the average human family. Some things don’t seem to be adding up quite like Sister told us.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

sources:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

About​

Even before the terms “original sin” and “immaculate conception” had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (CCC 508).

By the logic of that quotation, Jesus must be a sinner: for the “wages of sin, is death” (Romans 6.23). And Jesus died.

Mary was a normal human being, not a half-goddess who never got her hands dirty. She ovulated, had her periods, had the same gynaecological & excretory plumbing as any other woman. That’s why she offered a pair of doves in the Temple - that was what the Law laid down for those women to do, who could afford no other offering after the end of the time that they were ceremonially unclean as a result of bearing a son.

If Jesus could be baptised even though He was the one person who had no need of baptism, why should His mother be in a more favoured position than He ? “The servant is not above his master”, as He pointed out: so how can His mother be ? If He had to die, & if He was not above being baptised - by what right is she excused from what He was not too proud to go through ? If she was not exempt from the Law, there is no reason to think she was exempt from the same birth-pangs as other women either.

It makes no sense to admit that Jesus was spared nothing that we go through, while insisting that His mother was let off the sort of things other mothers suffered & suffer. What’s good enough for Him, is most definitely good enough for her; it has to be. Who does she think she is ? If God is not too good to suffer as human beings do, she is in no position at all to make out that she is too good to do so. She can suffer just like the rest of her sex & just like all the rest of us - and like it. If she wants to be a follower of Christ - then she can & must (& had better) “take up the Cross”, just like everyone else. If God the Father allowed His own Beloved Son to suffer so greatly, she is nobody, to be let off suffering.

This stuff about being exempt from birth pains has nothing in its favour - it’s based on a a text written c. 150, by someone whose knowledge of Palestinian geography, the history of the first century, & much else, bears as much relation to reality as “Sesame Street” does to brain surgery.
God forbid we should base our faith on such worthless fairy tales !

 

[CRW]

Gottle of Geer;1745014QUOTE:

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (**De Fide **on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

Dogma of the Church that she gave birth without violation. If dogma declares it was not a natural birth, could the same pains of natural childbirth be true? Are not we as Catholic’s required to support the teachings of the Church? Merry CHRISTmas All

 

[Steve40]

So when we say Jesus was human like us in all ways but sin we also must say that his conception and birth were also different? If Mary couldn’t feel pain, how did she cope with hot stoves and sand burs etc.? I am beginning to wonder as well how real is the model of the Holy Family for the average human family. Some things don’t seem to be adding up quite like Sister told us.

No pain just in Childbirth. Otherwise her heart was pieced by what is it seven swords? She felt more pain than you or I probably ever will. Being a the foot of the cross must have been physically painful for her.

 

[Steve40]

So when we say Jesus was human like us in all ways but sin we also must say that his conception and birth were also different? If Mary couldn’t feel pain, how did she cope with hot stoves and sand burs etc.? I am beginning to wonder as well how real is the model of the Holy Family for the average human family. Some things don’t seem to be adding up quite like Sister told us.

No pain just in Childbirth. Otherwise her heart was pieced by what is it seven swords? She felt more pain than you or I probably ever will. Being a the foot of the cross must have been physically painful for her.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer;1745014QUOTE:

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (**De Fide **

on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

Dogma of the Church that she gave birth without violation. If dogma declares it was not a natural birth, could the same pains of natural childbirth be true? Are not we as Catholic’s required to support the teachings of the Church? Merry CHRISTmas All## That depends on whether virginity & an intact hymen are necessarily linked. If they aren’t, she could have ceased to have her hymen intact, without ceasing to be a virgin.

As to that doctrine’s being de fide - that is Father Ott’s opinion; other may differ from him. What is certain is that something is very wrong with a doctrine of the Incarnation of which the real corporeality is denied; an Incarnation that is not genuinely, fully, grossly, fleshily carnal, is too close to Docetism for comfort. Fortunately for us, the obscenity & indecency of the Cross is at the heart of Christian faith, so there is no way it can be got rid of.

Christianity is not spiritual; it’s vulgar, coarse, fleshy, indelicate, “not nice”; it’s about someone who ended His public life naked & bleeding & accursed on a Cross - why should His coming into the world be any more sanitary ? The world was not yet redeemed, & His mother was part of that world - why should she be exempt from pain, when He was not ? The devil is spiritual - to a fault; Jesus Christ, being the vulgarian He is, has a body: He sweated, had body fluids, ate, drank, worked with His hands, walked, wept, was crushed by sorrow, was flogged, bled, pierced, died.

Happy Advent to you too

 

[Valke2]

I said I believe while she was on EARTH, she was unattractive, and here, I only mean in a WORLDLY sense, that is, that guys who are superficial wouldn’t have found her attractive. But men who understood what true beauty is would be able to be attracted to her precisely because of here spiritual beautry. but, of course, in her GLORIFIED BODY after the ASSUMPTION, she is indescribably beautiful, especially physically, seeing as our inner beauty will be manifested physicaly in the resurrection, just as many “beautiful women” who were dead spiritually will be grotesque in the resurrection of the damned.

why would there be any issue of physical beauty after the Assumption? Does the Church teach that we have physical characteristics after death? Did Jesus’ physical features change after death? If so, how was he recoginzed?

 

[Valke2]

How does one explain Mary’s immaculate conception? Does this mean that her mother was without sin? How could that be?

 

[TOME]

Gottle of Geer (Michael),
As usual I read your posts with great interest. For the most part I have to agree with your positions. But not with all you wrote, partly because I think I might be misinterpeting what you wrote.

I think we are agree that it is reasonable to believe Mary gave birth to Jesus in a normal human way, that is she felt pain that is a natural occurance in child birth. If one studies the writings of the Church Fathers, they basically based their thoughts that Mary gave birth without pain was based on an opinion that this came as a special favor (some would say grace) from God through the Immaculate Conception. If Mary was without Original Sin then she shouldn’t have felt pain. However, as I believe, this isn’t necessarily the case because why would Mary be spared that one pain yet suffered pain throughout her life (Lk 2: 3 -5)? Also, the greatest punishment for the sin of Adam was death, yet we know that Mary suffered a physical death.

I think one could reasonably argue that Mary, being free from Original Sin and thus truely human suffered these pains perhaps more than anyone else, but then again she was able to experience the joy of the birth of her child more than any other mother.

As for her hymen remaining intact thus preserving her virginity, I just cannot accept this as a sign of virginity but I understand in the times and the culture from which the Fathers wrote, this physical occurance was accepted as a sign of virginity. Today we know that the hymen can be broken because of various non-sexual reasons, so I just cannot accept this as condition of virginity.

I look as Mary’s virginity as the reality that her whole being was given to God, and this remained through out her entire earthly life. There was no compromise in this and there was no distraction in this as well. She was totally given to God and God Incarnate (not that there is a difference between the two).
But in saying this it may seem that I not saying that Mary remained a virgin in the sexual sense, I am not, I believe, based on what I just wrote, that Mary remained a sexual virgin as well.

I think the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is a matter of De Fide as well. In the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) continually calls her a “Virgin”. Lumen Gentium refers to Mary as virgin in the present tense. Also, and perhaps more immediate to our everyday experience, we proclaim Mary to be “Ever Virgin” throughout the Liturgy.

Finally, I agree with you that Christianity or better the Church is corporal by nature. The Church is the Body of Christ, however, this too means that like Christ who is fully Divine and Fully Human the Church does have this spiritual element as well. It has too because the Church cannot be the Body of Christ if the Human and Divine are separated. It is true, historically speaking, that too often there was no problem seeing the human element of the Church, however, it is our firm belief that we share in Christ Divine Nature through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Steve40]

How does one explain Mary’s immaculate conception? Does this mean that her mother was without sin? How could that be?

My understanding is that number one, it is a mystery. This is one of the reasons it had to be infallibly proclaimed by the Pope because you can’t see it from historical information or natural law. The mysterious mechanism of the immaculate conception I believe, is that at the time of Mary’s conception God put the Grace of Christ on the cross back in time. Mary’s salvation and being born without sin was Jesus’ death and resurrection just like our salvation, only she received the gift in advance. The gift of knowing the Church is right on this stuff is that we don’t have to understand how, we can just sit back and imagine why. God can do anything. Why not?

 

[George_Craft]

My catholic scripture school teacher said that Mary probably did experience birth pains. She said she does not deny the immaculate conception, but if Jesus could be sinless and still work and die (consequences of the fall), Mary can experience birth pains. This seems to make sense to me but I am wondering what does the church teach?

Kendy

Hi Kendy,

This verse from the Holy Scriptures (Douay-Rheims Version) should help answer that question:

Isa 66:7 Before she was in labour, she brought forth; before her time came to be delivered, she brought forth a man child.

With love,
George

 

[TOME]

George Craft,
Do you think Revelation 12 vs 2 is revelant to this discussion?

But all in all, I think Steve40’s last post was closest to the best answer. Perhaps we should be more concern with meditating on and celebrating these mysteries than analyzing them.

 

[George_Craft]

George Craft,
Do you think Revelation 12 vs 2 is revelant to this discussion?

Hi Tome,

If verse 12:2 is speaking of the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, I would say yes, but based on my belief that Revelation is refering to events to come in the future, I would have to answer no to your question.

As Revelation 2 speaks further:

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The early Church suffered greatly while it was forming throughout the world. Rome (Rev. 12:3) caused a great hardship on the infant Church, the worst of which happened in appx. 70 AD with the invasion of Jerusalem and the utter destruction of the Temple. (I think this is also spoken of in Matthew 24)

That Revelation 12 is referring to Mary is without question to me, but I think the pain being mentioned here is speaking of the suffering she endured watching the birth of her second child, the Church.

Please accept that this only my personal feeling of what this chapter of Scripture is speaking of, many others think it speaks of Jerusalem and many others take it to be a mix of history and prophecy. I just don’t know for certain and pray the Holy Spirit guide us all to understanding correctly. That’s why I’m here, to hopefully learn where I’m in error.

Psa 119:169 Let my supplication, O Lord, come near in thy sight: give me understanding according to thy word.

Your absolutely right about Steve40’s post, the Church is our teaching authority, but not much mentioned regarding Revelation. We’re to live as if it were to happen in the next minute and reflect on the glorious life, death and resurrection of our Lord.

My sincerest wishes for a Blessed and Joy filled Christmas and New Year for you and yours.

With love,
George

 

[st_ignatius110]

Also, the greatest punishment for the sin of Adam was death, yet we know that Mary suffered a physical death

The Church actually teaches that Mary may not have died but instead been assumed before she died. However, we do not know for sure that she did not die and we also know for sure that Jesus, who is more perfect then Mary, did suffer death. If Mary did not suffer during labor because it was a part of the curse how much more should Jesus not have suffered death since it was/is part of the curse?

 

[Valke2]

The Church actually teaches that Mary may not have died but instead been assumed before she died. However, we do not know for sure that she did not die and we also know for sure that Jesus, who is more perfect then Mary, did suffer death. If Mary did not suffer during labor because it was a part of the curse how much more should Jesus not have suffered death since it was/is part of the curse?

Pain is not part of the original curse. Pain in childbirth and toiling for a living is.

 

[st_ignatius110]

Pain is not part of the original curse. Pain in childbirth and toiling for a living is.

Maybe I was not clear in my post. I do realize that pain was not a part of the curse but the curse was pain in childbirth, toil AND death. Our Lord Jesus suffered death though He was without sin how much more could Mary have suffered childbirth although she was without sin?

 

[DCD]

Mary and birth pains?

St. Thomas answer is no in the Summa.

Peace,
David

 

[Valke2]

Maybe I was not clear in my post. I do realize that pain was not a part of the curse but the curse was pain in childbirth, toil AND death. Our Lord Jesus suffered death though He was without sin how much more could Mary have suffered childbirth although she was without sin?

Where does it say toil and death?

 

[st_ignatius110]

Where does it say toil and death?

I am somewhat confused. Did you not just say that toil was a part of the curse? Why are you now asking me for a reference?

Genesis 3:17-19

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

 

[Valke2]

I am somewhat confused. Did you not just say that toil was a part of the curse? Why are you now asking me for a reference?

I don’t know why I questioned toil. Clearly it is part of the original curse. I must have been tired. It seems, however, that death was a natural part of life and that it would only have been avoided if the ate from the tree of eternal life. So I don’t view death as part of the original curse.