Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is quite clear why I disagree with your assertions and I did so using a well accepted, politely worded and even mildly humourous expression.
I believe you are taking things just a tad too seriously to heart.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
However I believe you have gone off the rails if you are unable to discern that more recent Magisterial expressions, if any, are now trying to side step and pussy foot around that ancient articulation.
Click to expand...
You’re speculating. The doctrine is clearly explained.
 
By all means provide a clear Magisterial quote since JPII that states we must hold as infallibly true the birth of Jesus left His Mother’s biological “integrity” intact and that he was born other than via the birth canal in the usual manner.
I dont see that clearly stated in the CCC.

And commentaries on that less than clear teaching in the CCC far from confirm the biological clarity you personally interpret to be there.

Me, I go with the lead of expert commentary than an anonymous opinion of someone called DM sorry.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
…
Do you find it strange that the Church allegedly teaches Jesus’s birth is a great miracle yet is unable to articulate what the miracle physically consists in…at all. …
Click to expand...
No. We hold that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.
 
Last edited:
Not really what I asked. Do you find it strange that a Council would consider a biological fact or not (the tearing of an inimate body part) capable of being the subject of allegedly valid infallible Magisterial pronouncements?

What about geocentrism?

Was the geocentric view of the solar system up to the time of Galileo also seen as a subject matter of “faith” (obviously it could not be “seen” to be true (for we now know they were mistaken to believe it self evident) even if most thought it was).
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Not really what I asked. Do you find it strange that a Council would consider a biological fact or not (the tearing of an inimate body part) capable of being the subject of allegedly valid infallible Magisterial pronouncements?

What about geocentrism?

Was the geocentric view of the solar system up to the time of Galileo also seen as a subject matter of “faith” (obviously it could not be “seen” to be true (for we now know they were mistaken to believe it self evident) even if most thought it was).
Click to expand...
No. Same as for healing the sick, raising the dead, the transfiguration, the resurrection, descending into Hades, the ascension of the body into Heaven.

It is not the topic, so I am not going to say any more about Galileo than what I remember from by research before, that it was bad timing, for the knowledge he had could scandalize the people.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree! Respectful and tactful discussion is one thing. However, discussing the Blessed Mother this way is quite inappropriate. This is not a medical exam room 😠
 
I glossed over an old thread about this very subject which had a link by Jimmy Akin which didn’t work, but what I read said we can believeJesus was born through Mary’s birth canal.
 
What physical aspect of biology are we discussing in respect to Our Lady of the Rosary.

That’s the difference.
 
Last edited:
I keep coming to reply to others posts to me. That’s the polite thing to do.

And to continue reinforcing it’s just not right to discuss this physical aspect of any woman, unless you are her doctor!

Lest we forget this is The Blessed Virgin Mary, the greTest Saint we have.

Stop insulting her with the physical nature of this conversation.
 
Doesn’t seem like she would mind. Mothers speak to their children about this things, yes?
 
OK, you cannot provide any recent Magisterial support for your rather strong views.
 
I asked my former priest this and according to him, It was a “supernatural birth. He just appeared magically outside” Mary’s stomach.
 
LittleWay16 said:
What is the point of arguing this? Childbirth is not sex. If the hymen, or any other part of the body tears through anything other than sex, the person is still a virgin. The hymen can tear from tampons, horseback riding, pelvic exams. Those activities don’t make a person a non-virgin. Only sex does.

Good grief.
Click to expand...
Yes, good grief indeed.

This kind of arguing over the minute details of Jesus’s birth, and the proposing of all kinds of weird hypotheses concerning that birth, and the equation of an unbroken hymen with purity and virginity, is exactly why Protestants think we’ve gone a bit overboard on the Mary stuff.
 
Hope1960 said:
What does your first paragraph mean?
Click to expand...
Read Tim Staples, Behold Your Mother, appendix 4. Infallible dogma is virginity before, during, and after, but the miraculous nature of the birth is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium which requires religious assent but not divine faith.

Extraordinary Magisterium (Modern Catholic Dictionary)
The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or of ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magisterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.
Click to expand...
Ordinary Magisterium
The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.
Click to expand...
 
Hope1960 said:
I agree with this, but shall I clarify my question… was Jesus born naturally, in other words, via Mary’s birth canal?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. This would be contrary to the dignity of Our Lady, contrary to justice (she who has no sin being subjected to the pangs of childbirth), contrary to the dignity of Our Lord, and contrary to the Traditions of the Church.
 
BlackFriar said:
Like geocentrism the Church will one day have to declare it got it wrong.
Click to expand...
This has still not happened. The Church has never taught that geocentrism is wrong. Certain clergy certainly agree that it is wrong, but the Church’s position on this is officially the same as it ever was.

Rightly so too, because it is quite likely that we are in the center.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top