Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope1960

Guest
On another thread (as well as ol threads from long ago), it was mentioned that when Jesus was born, Mary’s womb was “opened.”

I know that some people debate this and say Jesus was born in a miraculous way (through Mary’s tummy?)

I also know Mary is ever Virgin. So what, if anything, does the Church teach on this?
 
Last edited:
Nothing, nought.

We shouldn’t in my mind, be contemplating the physical details relating to Our Lady. Just as with any other mother.
 
I’ve seen child birth in person with my own two eyes. Lots of fluids and screaming and unpleasantness and grossness. We just shouldn’t think about it. Important thing is, Jesus was born one way or another and Mary pulled through like a champ.
 
I HAD a child so your position of seeing it is nothing.
Having said that, do you know if the Church has a position on this topic?
 
Last edited:
Good to know. Thanks. You’re another poster who knows her stuff, is direct and to the point.
 
There has been some theological speculation that Our Lord was born miraculously, sparing His Mother from the pains of childbirth. This is just speculation, not the teaching of the Church.
 
Hope1960 said:
On another thread (as well as ol threads from long ago), it was mentioned that when Jesus was born, Mary’s womb was “opened.”

I know that some people debate this and say Jesus was born in a miraculous way (through Mary’s tummy?)
Click to expand...
Through the inviolate hymen. Like a puff of smoke.
I also know Mary is ever Virgin. So what, if anything, does the Church teach on this?
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is believed de fide (i.e. held by Catholics as being an essential part of faith), states that Mary was a virgin before, during and after giving birth for all her life. … “Ever Virgin”) is attested to by Epiphanius of Salamis from the early 4th century.
Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia


It sounds as though the Church has spoken on this matter. I know, for a fact, that the only people who have ever questioned this doctrine in my presence, present company excluded, have been Protestants. But they question everything Marian.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Having said that, do you know if the Church has a position on this topic?
Click to expand...
There are people in the Church who have a position. The Church herself, as a doctrine? No.
De_Maria said:
Through the inviolate hymen. Like a puff of smoke.

I also know Mary is ever Virgin. So what, if anything, does the Church teach on this?

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary
Click to expand...
At the risk of being less delicate than some might wish, I have a question for you, @De_Maria: does the Church teach the “Perpetual Hymen of Mary” or the “Perpetual Virginity of Mary”?

I would warrant that it’s the latter. Therefore, although the integrity of that tissue is a common way of testing virginity, it is not the sole proof of virginity.

There are those, throughout history, who would claim the former statement, though. (I would assert that it’s due to the use of that verification method that they conflated “intact hymen” with “virgin”.)

However, the Church teaches “perpetual virginity”, not “perpetual one-single-method-of-indicating-virginity.” And therefore, the Church does not speak, doctrinally, on how Mary’s virginity was preserved in childbirth. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
At the risk of being less delicate than some might wish, I have a question for you, @De_Maria: does the Church teach the “Perpetual Hymen of Mary” or the “Perpetual Virginity of Mary”?

I would warrant that it’s the latter. Therefore, although the integrity of that tissue is a common way of testing virginity, it is not the sole proof of virginity.

There are those, throughout history, who would claim the former statement, though. (I would assert that it’s due to the use of that verification method that they conflated “intact hymen” with “virgin”.)

However, the Church teaches “perpetual virginity”, not “perpetual one-single-method-of-indicating-virginity.” And therefore, the Church does not speak, doctrinally, on how Mary’s virginity was preserved in childbirth. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
So, you’re denying that the hymen was intact? If not, what’s the fuss? I didn’t say that the Church had a “perpetual one single method of indicating virginity” doctrine. You’re the only one who has mentioned that mouthful.

Sometimes, you try too hard. You’re splitting hairs man. You’re splitting hairs.

P.S. I remember that the article I posted said that She is virgin “before, during and after.” I think that takes care of any issues you might have with the hymen.
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
So, you’re denying that the hymen was intact? If not, what’s the fuss?
Click to expand...
We can neither confirm nor deny such a thing.

It is equally incorrect to assert either as being a doctrine of the church. There is no doctrine of the church regarding Mary’s hymen. There is theological discussion.

The Church teaches perpetual virginity. Virginity is defined by not having had intercourse. It is not defined by having or not having a hymen.
 
1ke said:
We can neither confirm nor deny such a thing.
Click to expand...
But can you believe it? Because if you can’t, then you are denying the perpetual virginity of Mary.
It is equally incorrect to assert either as being a doctrine of the church. There is no doctrine of the church regarding Mary’s hymen. There is theological discussion.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, the Church Teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, the hymen must remain inviolate. The early Church would not have considered her a virgin without it.
The Church teaches perpetual virginity. Virginity is defined by not having had intercourse. It is not defined by having or not having a hymen.
Click to expand...
You’re interpreting virginity in the modern sense. That would not have ever occurred to the 1st century mind. Unless you can find a first century dissertation of virginity without the unbroken hymen, you are merely inventing a new definition of virginity.

I’m looking forward to your proof that the Early Church would consider the Our Lady a virgin, without belief that her hymen remained intact, before, during and after the birth of Our Lord.
 
De_Maria said:
But can you believe it? Because if you can’t, then you are denying the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Click to expand...
I need not believe that Mary’s hymen was intact to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I believe in what the Church actually teaches, and it teaches nothing definitive regarding her hymen.
 
1ke said:
I need not believe that Mary’s hymen was intact to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I believe in what the Church actually teaches, and it teaches nothing definitive regarding her hymen.
Click to expand...
I guess, until the Church defines what She means by perpetual virginity, we can agree to disagree.

Nuff said.
 
Gorgias said:
At the risk of being less delicate than some might wish, … does the Church teach the “Perpetual Hymen of Mary” or the “Perpetual Virginity of Mary”?
Click to expand...
Its an astute question.
Its one of those very rare instances where a declared truth of faith appears to be denied if a physical truth is denied. Much like the issue of heliocentrism appeared to deny the truth of the Bible (where geocentralism was widely considered infallibly held up until the time of Galileo).

And theres a similar problem here - the assertion that a hymen can remain intact during childbirth, whether naturally or by a miracle, is no longer considered either naturally possible or important enough to merit a miracle re Mary’s purity anymore. It is a “necessary” conclusion coming from an extreme theological stance widely held at the time that Mary’s womb could not be said to have been opened (signified by absence of the hymen).

Yet the Church did apparently declare Mary was a virgin during her childbirth.
That statement can really have only one meaning - things remained intact. There is even a pious legend to this effect attesting to such.

The Church has tried to quietly bury this teaching in more recent times. One has to read the CCC extremely carefully to find the very small hint placed there as a sop to this apparently embarrassing vestigial teaching that even the Catechism seems loathe to state clearly.

But as you indicate, like geocentrism, the assumption that an objectively physical truth must be upheld to safeguard a theological truth is no longer an assumed infallible teaching but has been clarified. The Church only teaches that matters of theological faith and morals (not perceived physical truths) can be infallibly proclaimed,

So as you say, we must hold to the perpetual virginity, but not necessarily it seems to a “perpetual hymen.”
If the Council declared the latter then they actually had no authority to do so infallibly it seems.

If that be the case I don’t really know what the phrase “virgin during childbirth” actually means in terms of any theological truth we must hold to as infallible. Possibly it is about theologically/legalistically asserting her womb “was not opened” by childbirth allowing her to retain the mystically contrary titles of both Virgin and Mother. It seems the story of Jesus magically passing through Mary’s stomach wall (as did Buddha before him) was too incredible to maintain even back then…and the intact hymen theory was a last gasp effort to give some credibility to this ailing physicalist theology.

Surely the important theological truth to be conserved is that the Holy Spirit was Jesus’s father not man.
Perpetual hymens and magical passing through tummy walls aren’t strictly necessary to support that truth I would think.

Here are some thought provoking articles:
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rc...thEdited.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2RujiQS36O7ht2bkP1VOu-
 
Last edited:
Our Mother, the Mother of God is the Virgin before, during, and forever after giving birth to Jesus Christ. Miraculously, giving birth did not change her body’s virginal integrity.

Here is the Catechism:

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
 
Last edited:
Only on the internet can you find the discussion of our Mother’s hyman? Seriously, somethings you just believe because you do; somethings you just dont question or expect to prove or disprove. Is called Catholicism
 
I agree with this, but shall I clarify my question… was Jesus born naturally, in other words, via Mary’s birth canal?
 
From what I’ve read, I think he was born supernaturally through Mary’s birth canal. “Supernaturally” meaning–as the Catechism says–he did not diminish His Mother’s virginal integrity, but sanctified it. This is a great mystery of faith regarding our Mother and that of God, so we should be extremely respectful–not joke about it at all (as some seem to be doing)-- and not expect our minds to be able to fully grasp it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top