Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Yes. But it does not define "virginal integrity."

It defines it enough for me.

I mean really: I keep posting the same thing over and over again.

This is not a clasroom. We are discussing/debating. You have to be prepared to convince people or just agree to disagree.

I will post it yet again (insert exasperated sigh
It is not necessary for anyone to believe that the definition of the word “virginity” necessary and absolutely includes the detail that if a woman’s bodily parts react to giving birth in the natural way that hat such a woman is no longer a virgin.

The opposite is also not necessary. And I believe that idea is the one the Early Church would have held.

Virginity is about a state of being…

With respect. To you. But I’m interested in the Church Teaching.

1---- No, Catechism 499 does not define the term Virginal integrity. It simply does not. One cannot claim that it does. This isn’t a disputable point. It either defines it or it does not. You are assuming the definition, you aren’t reading it in Catechism 499.

2-----I am trying to convince people. It is difficult to do when people post something as if I haven’t already addressed a certain statement or question; which causes me to repeat what I’ve already posted.

Part of dialogue is to insert something new into the conversation. That something new would be to show me why you think that the definition of virginity must necessarily include virgo intacta. Not the mere assertion that it does, but a reason why you say that.

When I say that we don’t have to believe that virgo intacta absolutely defines a virgin, you respond by trying to prove to me that our Blessed Mother is ever-virgin. Well, I don’t dispute that for a moment. We all take that as a given.

It is frustrating to me that I have to keep going back again and again and again explaining the distinction between believing “ever virgin” on the one hand and defining “ever virgin” on the other hand.

If you want to assert that virgo intacta is indeed an essential criteria for virginity, then by all means, explain to us why you think that way. But merely going backwards in the conversation to force me to repeat what I’ve typed so many times now does not move the conversation forward.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes. But that is besides the point. We aren’t discussing virgins in general. What does the Church say about Our Lady? What does the Church say about HER virginal integrity before, during and after the birth of Our Lord?

Again, I find myself forced to repeat what I’ve been saying over and over…

The Church teaches, and we must believe, that she is ever-Virgin.

The Church does not define the word virgin, as a matter of faith, to include the criteria of virgo intacta.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes.

The only part I’ll add is that we are free to discuss it and debate it and dialogue about it. We don’t just say it happened and walk away (not that you’re saying that either).

I would very much like to have such a discussion. My frustration is that I keep having to respond to the same statements and questions over and over again as if the previous 300 or so posts never happened.

I am waiting for someone to insert something NEW into the conversation.

I have been saying over and over again, in response to the same repeated questions and statements that it is not necessary for anyone to believe as a matter of faith that the word “virginity” necessary and absolutely includes the biological fact of virgo intacta.

Thus far, the only response to me is to go backwards and ask me to repeat something.

I am waiting for someone to actually address this issue.

If someone wants to claim that a virgin must be biologically virgo intacta, show us why you think that way.

Thus far, no one has attempted it. Not in any substantial way.

Part of this kind of dialogue is for other parties to explain themselves. I am awaiting such explanations. I am asking such persons to participate in a conversation and share your thoughts with us.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am trying to be delicate. Not easy given the topic.

It’s also why I keep adding the adjective “biologically” virgo intacta. I mean the physical reality of an unbroken hymen (there, I’ve typed it).

Of course, perpetual (or intact) Virginity in the sense of never having carnal relations is something we must all believe.

 

[Hope1960]

What about the saints, Church Fathers and popes who said that it was like light passing through glass and other stuff?

 

[De_Maria]

Again, I find myself forced to repeat what I’ve been saying over and over…

That’s because you don’t want to leave your comfort zone.

The Church teaches, and we must believe, that she is ever-Virgin.

Agreed.

The Church does not define the word virgin, as a matter of faith, to include the criteria of virgo intacta.

The word need not be defined in order for the Church to Teach that Our Lady’s integrity was preserved during the birth of Our Lord. Don’t make me repeat that!

First Lateran Council: “If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.htm

A torn hymen, is an injury.

 

[FrDavid96]

What about the saints, Church Fathers and popes who said that it was like light passing through glass and other stuff?

Well, WHAT about it?

I mean: you tell me. That’s what dialogue is all about.

Do you take the position that a metaphor like that is a matter that rises to the level of a de fide teaching? If so, why? What do you think it means? What level of belief must a Christian attach to what they said?

You tell me what YOU think about that.

 

[BlackFriar]

A torn hymen, is an injury.

Youve missed the point.
It doesnt mean loss of virginity, the theological dogma is not in peril.
It is not a dogma she was biologically intact…though it was once an accepted teaching…and possibly considered unquestionable at the time.

 

[De_Maria]

Youve missed the point.

I don’t think so.

It doesnt mean loss of virginity,

I didn’t say it did. I said that the Doctrine clearly states that she was uninjured when giving birth to Our Lord.

the theological dogma is not in peril.

The theological Doctrine was written by ancient men who held a different view of virginity than that which you hold.

It is not a dogma she was biologically intact…

But it is a Doctrine, as I have shown.

though it was once an accepted teaching…

It remains an accepted Teaching as I have shown.

and possibly considered unquestionable at the time.

It is a Doctrine of the Church and I won’t question it. In fact, I will do my best to explain it and let other people know the Truth.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s because you don’t want to leave your comfort zone.

The Church teaches, and we must believe, that she is ever-Virgin.
The Church does not define the word virgin, as a matter of faith, to include the criteria of virgo intacta.

It certainly does need to be defined. It’s impossible to have any discussion about “virginity” unless the word is defined. So far, no one has done that in a reasoning, sensible way.

First Lateran Council: “If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.”

Same thing. You’re not quoting a text that proves the definition of virginity; only a text that USES the word virginity. This is just another example of proof-texting. The text quoted only SEEMS to answer my question. It still does not say what (apparently) some people want it to say, that anyone must believe that an essential quality of a true virgin is the biological or medical label of virgo intacta.

Quote me an ecumenical council that says “if anyone should say that no woman whose hymen is broken may call herself a virgin, let him be anathema” and I’ll concede the point. My position is that no such de fide teaching exists.

A torn hymen, is an injury.

First of all, injury could mean all sorts of things. For one thing, injury to whom? Jesus or Mary or both? The text (in English) is not clear.

Second of all: this is at least getting us closer. On that point, however, I still disagree. I do not see a torn hymen (in the course of giving birth) as an injury. I see that as normal (assuming it is even possible during birth, because it has to be intact in order to get torn).

Something that is a normal and expected part of life is not an injury. An injury is when something goes wrong.
This kind of thinking (injury) leads down a road that the Church has already dismissed as inappropriate. The idea that a woman’s body is somehow defective because her body does exactly what it is supposed to do belongs buried in the past. What does it say about our responsibility to affirm and uphold the dignity of women (MULIERIS DIGNITATEM Mulieris Dignitatem (August 15, 1988) | John Paul II)
If we continue to think along the lines that the natural behavior of a woman’s body is somehow an “injury” what does that say about the dignity of women?

As a woman, how do you feel about that kind of “theology” (so-called)?? Seriously, how does it make you feel? Does that affirm the dignity of your body as God created it?

 

[De_Maria]

Thanks. It does.

If it makes any difference, I’m by far not the only Catholic to have problems with this.

Saint Thomas Aquinas had serious issues with the Immaculate Conception as well.

True. But good Catholics fall in when the Church has spoken. St. Thomas lived before the Immaculate Conception was defined. We hope that he would accept the Teaching and fall in.

An example of a Catholic who fell into line when the Church made a decision contrary to his, is St. Jerome. When he was putting the Latin Vulgate together, he was going to leave out the Deuterocanon. But the Pope and the Church told him that was not acceptable. And he obeyed. Thus we have the 73 book Bible canon.

 

[FrDavid96]

It doesnt mean loss of virginity,

BINGO

You win the cupie doll

It is not a dogma she was biologically intact…

But it is a Doctrine, as I have shown.

No. I disagree that it is doctrine.

I disagree that you, or anyone else, has proven that it is doctrine.

It is not doctrine, but a non-essential and, I hold changeable, accidental property of virginity, not an essential property.

though it was once an accepted teaching…

It remains an accepted Teaching as I have shown.

Again, no. You haven’t shown it. You have shown that perpetual virginity is the dogma. No one has shown that virgo intacta is an essential property of virginity. Sorry, but no matter how many times you might assert it, you haven’t shown that this is dogmatic or doctrinal teaching.

and possibly considered unquestionable at the time.

It is a Doctrine of the Church and I won’t question it. In fact, I will do my best to explain it and let other people know the Truth.

Same thing. The Church doesn’t say that it’s doctrine. The Church says that perpetual virginity is doctrine.

 

[jas84173]

Personally I think our Canon should have all of the books Orthodox do. You know some of the books Jerome did put in his Vulgate aren’t in our Bibles now? 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh were in his translation. 3 and 4 Esdras after 1 and 2 Esdras ( Now known as Ezra and Nehemiah) and the Prayer of Mannaseh following Chronicles.
I also think 3 and 4 Maccabees should be in our Canon because it was in the Septuagint . Makes no sense 1 and 2 are but 3 and 4 aren’t. Also Psalm 151 is in the Septuagint.
It’s almost like Jerome just got a Septuagint that was missing the texts I speak of. Funny how that worked out.

 

[jas84173]

So we’re just supposed to believe something a Pope thought up in the 1800s? I am sorry that is a little much. Call me a heretic but it is shady.

 

[FrDavid96]

So we’re just supposed to believe something a Pope thought up in the 1800s? I am sorry that is a little much. Call me a heretic but it is shady.

1. That’s a false characterization, that a pope “just thought it up.” It borders on insulting.
2. Yes, we are supposed to believe it. It has been defined as an infallible teaching.
3. It’s off topic.

 

[De_Maria]

It certainly does need to be defined. It’s impossible to have any discussion about “virginity” unless the word is defined. So far, no one has done that in a reasoning, sensible way.

That’s just an opinion. My opinion is that the word “virginity” doesn’t have to be defined because Our Lady’s condition has been described unequivocally.

First Lateran Council: “If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.”

Virginity, at the time of the First Lateran Council, included the inviolability of the hymen.

Same thing. You’re not quoting a text that proves the definition of virginity; only a text that USES the word virginity.

I’m using a text that says our Lady was not injured.

This is just another example of proof-texting. The text quoted only SEEMS to answer my question. It still does not say what (apparently) some people want it to say, that anyone must believe that an essential quality of a true virgin is the biological or medical label of virgo intacta.

All you have is opinion. I have opinion and support my opinion with proof texts.

Quote me an ecumenical council that says “if anyone should say that no woman whose hymen is broken may call herself a virgin, let him be anathema” and I’ll concede the point. My position is that no such de fide teaching exists.

I don’t need to. I have quoted you a Church record that says her body was UNINJURED.

First of all, injury could mean all sorts of things. For one thing, injury to whom? Jesus or Mary or both? The text (in English) is not clear.

Not in this context.

Second of all: this is at least getting us closer. On that point, however, I still disagree. I do not see a torn hymen (in the course of giving birth) as an injury.

It is an injury in any context.

cont’d

 

[jas84173]

But where is it from? The Protoevangelium of James? A book not worthy to be in the Bible?
Mary couldn’t have been conceived without sin because in that case she is God too.

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

I see that as normal (assuming it is even possible during birth, because it has to be intact in order to get torn).

It isn’t normal at childbirth. But other things are torn and the woman suffers other injuries. So, no one would even know if the hymen were torn at that time, because it wouldn’t be expected to be intact.

Something that is a normal and expected part of life is not an injury. An injury is when something goes wrong.

On the contrary, it is normal for women to be torn in childbirth. It happens all the time. My wife suffered four such normal tears. And the doctors always described them as, “Perfectly normal.”

This kind of thinking (injury) leads down a road that the Church has already dismissed as inappropriate. The idea that a woman’s body is somehow defective because her body does exactly what it is supposed to do belongs buried in the past. What does it say about our responsibility to affirm and uphold the dignity of women (MULIERIS DIGNITATEM Mulieris Dignitatem (August 15, 1988) | John Paul II)

You’re not making sense. There’s nothing in that document about a woman being injured when giving birth.

If we continue to think along the lines that the natural behavior of a woman’s body is somehow an “injury” what does that say about the dignity of women?

As a woman, how do you feel about that kind of “theology” (so-called)?? Seriously, how does it make you feel? Does that affirm the dignity of your body as God created it?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m a husband and father of four. I know that my wife was injured when the children were born in natural childbirth. And I know that there was nothing there to be ashamed of. And, Mulieris Dignitatem is not about injuries sustained during giving birth. If you think so, quote the pertinent text. Do some proof texting. Otherwise, its just you’re unsupported opinion.

 

[De_Maria]

But where is it from? The Protoevangelium of James? A book not worthy to be in the Bible?
Mary couldn’t have been conceived without sin because in that case she is God too.

It is one of the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

Let me explain. Protestants believe in Scripture alone. They read Scripture and invent doctrine.

But Catholics get their Doctrines from Jesus Christ, through the Church.

When Jesus Christ came down to us, He established the Catholic Church. He commanded the Church to Teach the people all that He commanded. The Catholic Church taught everyone and wrote the New Testament based upon those Teachings of Jesus Christ.

Now, every Doctrine of Jesus Christ is written in the New Testament, either explicit or implied. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is implied in this verse:

Luke 1:28Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace,[a] the Lord is with you!”

The words, “full of grace” come from the Greek, Kecharitomene, which means that Mary was always full of grace. There was never a time when she was not full of grace. Therefore, she was full of grace from the time of her conception.

Thus, Scripture confirms the Catholic Doctrine.

I hope that helps.

 

[jas84173]

I thought the Lord is with all of us upon baptism no?