Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[LittleFlower]

A non-birth canal route is not really necessary since it is miraculously possible that there was passage through the birth canal without any tearing or bruising of anything.

Why can’t our Mother just have had a natural birth? In all it’s glory?

Doesn’t make her any less virgin.

 

[BlackFriar]

I believe its pretty easy to tell whose womb has been “opened” and whose has not.
I don’t believe its possible for, excuse the expression, overstretched springs to ever return to how they were.
My sister is a retired hospital matron.
She seems able to tell whose had kids simply by the way they walk!

 

[Hope1960]

And IMO that’s what happened, but again, like1ke and others have said, the Church hasn’t spoken about that particular thing.

 

[JoeVig]

Im not asking you to blindly accept anything im just saying some things are beyond our mere creature intellect. You think i havent wondered the same? Of course, we all have. Again, i certainly did not mean to imply you to walk blindly to your grave. The Church said it was a virgin birth. Ok good enough for me. Next question!

 

[BlackFriar]

A non-birth canal route is not really necessary since it is miraculously possible that there was passage through the birth canal without any tearing or bruising of anything.

But if a miracle is necessitated then that is not the miracle that anyone in the past has ever asserted as doing the trick. For that would entail opening of the womb which is exactly what, allegedly, must be safeguarded against (along with the hymen thing).

 

[Hope1960]

What do you mean? That people here are wrong and the Church does state that the birth canal was never opened?

 

[PJM]

That Mary had a ?normal" but, BUT REMAINED s Virgin, mysteriously and miraculously

GBY

 

[BlackFriar]

What do you mean? That people here are wrong and the Church does state that the birth canal was never opened?

Hope, if you are replying to me (or anyone else) you need to hit the reply on their post not the generic one at bottom of the page. Otherwise their icon doesn’t appear in your post and nobody knows whom you are addressing. I cannot see anything but you seem to be speaking to my post?

 

[Vico]

But if a miracle is necessitated then…

Magisterium:

1. Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503:

“If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.”

COMMENT: It is important to note the word integrity, which means the state of being untouched, and so is a physical word. It rules out lesions, blood and similar things. The Greek text, which is of equal authority, has “aphthoros,” without corruption.

It was not a General Council, but the Pope was present and approving, hence the teaching under anathema makes it equivalent to that of a general council. There was further approval by Vatican II, as we shall see, in LG 57, which repeated the word “integrity,” and gave a note referring us to this text of Lateran I. John Paul II in a General Audience of Jan 28, 1987 cited this text: “Mary was therefore a virgin before the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin in giving birth and after the birth. This is the truth presented by the New Testament texts, and which was expressed both by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553, which speaks of Mary as ‘ever virgin’, and also by the Lateran Council in 649, which teaches that ‘the mother of God…Mary…conceived [her Son] through the power of the Holy Spirit without human intervention, and in giving birth to him, her virginity remained incorrupted, and even after the birth her virginity remained intact.’”

Lumen Gentium 57 Chapter VIII, states that physical integrity was preserved:

1. …This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it,(10*) …

(10) Cfr. Conc. Lateranense anni 649, Can. 3: Mansi 10, 1151. S. Leo M., Epist. ad Flav.: PL S4, 7S9. - Conc. Chalcedonense: Mansi 7, 462. - S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.

COMMENT: Vatican II gave a footnote here to DS 503, cited above.

Note: Laurentin, p. 330: “The Council did not intend to condemn the new thesis, as had been envisaged, nor did it intend to approve it either.”— This is strange, given the texts we have just cited. Laurentin is predisposed to minimism in Mariology. He does not notice the word “integrity,” which rules out any tearing. Nor does he note the strong language of the Holy Office, cited below, which spoke of “flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal tradition of the Church.”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/virbir.htm

 

[BlackFriar]

Vico what is the relevance of your chunk quoting to my contribution?

 

[Vico]

Vico what is the relevance of your chunk quoting to my contribution?

Can’t see it?

You wrote:

But if a miracle is necessitated then that is not the miracle that anyone in the past has ever asserted as doing the trick. For that would entail opening of the womb which is exactly what, allegedly, must be safeguarded against (along with the hymen thing).

Virginal integrity is what is taught not that the birth canal was not the route of birth. A miracle can allow for both to be true. There is not statement of necessity, in what the Magisterium gave, rather the truth of maintenance of physical integrity.

 

[edtaylor51]

I was being facetious. It is gross but beautiful at the same time.

 

[BlackFriar]

Lets get real.
No Father ever suggested what you just said when the physicals were discussed (and they were, a lot).
Early tradition was almost wholly unanimous not only about her womb not being opened but also, when the physicals were discussed, about how baby Jesus passed through Mary’s side just as His tomb was never unsealed and Jesus entered the Upper Room without doors being opened.

Nobody ever said the stone was rolled back without being rolled back, the door allowed entrance without being ajar and Jesus exiting down the birth canal without the womb being stretched.

The Church, in Galileo’s time, never tried to pretend that the earth can remain the centre of the Solar System with a miracle of the earth all the same orbiting the sun.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I for one, am greatly offended about the concepts here.

The Blessed Virgin is the absolute model and way of female virtue.
We pray to imitate Mary as the greatest of the Saints and the Mother of God.

We pray as Mary herself requested, on the First Five Saturday’s, against insults, blasphemies and sacrilege against the Immaculate Heat of Mary , and the Sacred Heart of her son Jesus.

This thread , I see as a great insult to Mary. Her physical construct is none of our business.

 

[BlackFriar]

I agree.
Unfortunately most of the Fathers of the early church, a couple of Councils, many theologians in the Middle Ages and most recently acrimonious disputes in the 1950s have felt otherwise and turned this into, allegedly, a dogmatic teaching…which has speed wobbles for many people.

For myself, if true, such a teaching seems to take away from Jesus’s full humanity and solidarity with us.
It also suggests that normal birth is to still be seen as somehow impure, shameful or sinful.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Well it’s time for us to stand up and say enough of this in this conversation. The Church grows and clarity is revealed through the Holy Spirit.

Mary herself asked for prayers of reparation against insults to her.

There is nowhere to hide and no excuses in saying the earky Church did xyz. It’s the 21st Century. The Immaculate Conception has since been revealed, declared, defined.

Just stop already , people.

If anyone discussed me this way, they wouldn’t be discussing it long , in my hearing. Many many women would also see this as highly insulting.

It’s a disordered way of thinking.

 

[Vico]

Lets get real.
No Father ever suggested what you just said when the physicals were discussed (and they were, a lot).
Early tradition was almost wholly unanimous not only about her womb not being opened but also, when the physicals were discussed, about how baby Jesus passed through Mary’s side just as His tomb was never unsealed and Jesus entered the Upper Room without doors being opened.
…

Uhh, I did not say the womb was opened. I wrote “A non-birth canal route is not really necessary since it is miraculously possible that there was passage through the birth canal without any tearing or bruising of anything.”

The Church hears many opinions and then when a decision is made it does not embrace a particular theory in total. For example with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary there is not decision either way about her physical death, although there were various opinions.

…John Saward provides clarification from the Angelic Doctor:

St. Thomas says that the hymen pertains to virginity only per accidens, and that its rupture by any means other than sexual pleasure is no more destructive of virginity than the loss of a hand or foot (cf. ST 2a2æ q. 152, a. I, ad 3). However, he also holds that bodily integrity belongs to the perfection of virginity (see Quæstiones quodlibetales 6, q. 10, prol). (36)

(36) John Saward, Cradle of Redeeming Love: The Theology of the Christmas Mystery (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002) 212-213212, n. 128.

https://www.motherofallpeoples.com/post/the-miraculous-birth-of-the-lord

 

[BlackFriar]

Given that it has been discussed by many saints and Popes and is still a teaching of the Church should give some pause for thought on your position Rose. While some contributions could be less explicit or delicate not all of us males have those skills and sometimes excessive delicacy can make discussion difficult as things become ambiguous. I think its best to assume everybody here is mature and well intentioned.
It is a theological difficulty and like any other theological difficulty people should be able to tease things out a little and discuss what has in fact been asserted in the past.

Perhaps the best advice is the old adage - if one cannot take the heat it may be best not to stray into the kitchen.

 

[BlackFriar]

possible that there was passage through the birth canal without any tearing or bruising of anything.”

Yes that is indeed the difficult passage you stated.
If that isn’t “opening” I don’t know what is?
And indeed it would be miraculous if there wasn’t “anything”.

 

[runningdude]

Every pregnant woman’s uterus literaly opens to let the baby out. The statement is unremarkable.