Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know and do tap the arrow thing. Sometimes it doesn’t work or maybe I’m not tapping it hard enough.
 
You are male, I am female.

I know what insults women. And disordered talk like this does.

Not all women. But I guarantee the majority won’t be putting up with this sort of talk in their hearing.

It could almost fall across a boundary of healthy chat for many,

All we need to know is Mary gave birth to Jesus, was a virgin, remained a virgin , end of story. This is a public forum. And Catholic.
St Joseph is her most chaste spouse.

We are taught to greatly venerate and respect the Mother of God. Time to walk the walk and talk the talk.
 
Last edited:
NOBODY is insulting Our Lady. Popes and theologians have pondered this and we’ve been required to believe in Our Lady’s perpetual virginity. We can’t be certain of what we are required to believe without understanding EXACTLY what the Church teaches, as opposed to an ambiguous teaching.
 
Last edited:
We might want to direct this topic to what theological or Christological import there is to Mary’s physical integrity, given it was a topic that got its fair share of attention among the Church Fathers.

Is it a matter of her physical integrity remaining an image of her spiritual integrity? I’m not talking about any type of moral or ritual physical “pureness,” but simply the idea of physical, unharmed health being a reflection of her unharmed spirit. Purity as in unwearied, unharmed health. As undamaged by the world as she was when she was born? Is it a matter of the incarnation not being something that should bring physical pain or damage into the world?

I’m leaning towards the body being an image of her soul, but do the Patristics speak to the why this was discussed?
 
Last edited:
The church teaches one more thing on this: Mary had an Immaculate Conception, meaning she was born without any Original Sin.
 
If you take this as an insult, then be insulted by the Church Fathers and councils discussing this too. Start a thread about how insulting THAT was, considering they were all men.
 
This is the birth of Jesus according to St. Bridget of Sweden. These are Church approved revelations.
“When all was thus prepared the Virgin knelt with great veneration in an attitude of prayer; her back was to the manger, her face uplifted to heaven and turned toward the East.
Then, her hands extended and her eyes fixed on the sky she stood as in an ecstasy, lost in contemplation, in a rapture of divine sweetness. And while she stood thus in prayer I saw the Child in her womb move; suddenly in a moment she gave birth to her own Son from whom radiated such ineffable light and splendour that the sun was not comparable to it while the divine light totally annihilated the material light of St. Joseph’s candle. So sudden and instantaneous was this birth that I could neither discover nor discern by what means it had occurred. All of a sudden I saw the glorious Infant lying on the ground naked and shining, His body pure from any soil or impurity. Then I heard the singing of the angels of miraculous sweetness and beauty. When the Virgin felt she had borne her Child immediately she worshiped Him, her hands clasped in honour and reverence saying: ‘Be welcome my God, my Lord, my Son.”
Click to expand...
She also says she bore Jesus without any pain whatsoever and gave birth by herself. She also did not feel weary or exhausted after giving birth.
 
Last edited:
We are not required to believe in private revelations, not even approved ones.
 
Hope1960 said:
We are not required to believe in private revelations, not even approved ones.
Click to expand...
Well, compared to the graphic rubbish presented earlier, I think the “vision” of St. Bridget of Sweden is far superior. 😠
 
taylormarshall.com

Mary's Painless Delivery of Christ (Scripture, Church Fathers, Popes, and Doctors of the Church) - Taylor Marshall

In the post yesterday entitled “The Nativity Story Movie – Blasphemous and Sacrilegious,” with 54 comments and counting, there have questions about whether Mary’s delivery of Christ was: A) painless, and B) left her physical virginity intact. Some have felt that it somehow undermines the...
taylormarshall.com taylormarshall.com

1ke, what about this? Several times it teaches that her womb was not opened and remained closed.
 
Last edited:
What criteria due you use to distinguish edifying fantasy from a challenging truth or something neutral and ordinary.

For example why didn’t the Church accept the Gospel of Thomas where the apostle tells of an incident where baby Jesus blessed clay birds he made and they flew away?
 
Last edited:
LittleFlower said:
40.png
Vico:
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.
Click to expand...
Why can’t our Mother just have had a natural birth? In all it’s glory?

Doesn’t make her any less virgin.
Click to expand...
I think it is because the Church has stated that is was miraculous, which it does based upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
 
Nor does it make the vision any less. Just as you needn’t believe St. Bridget of Sweden others will choose to disregard these borderline heretical musings.
 
BlackFriar said:
For example why didn’t the Church accept the Gospel of Thomas where the apostle tells of an incident where baby Jesus blessed clay birds he made and they flew away?
Click to expand...
Since you asked 😏 The so-called Gospel of Thomas really isn’t a Gospel at all, but a collection of 114 sayings or logia attributed to Jesus. Approximately one-fourth of these sayings are the same as those found in the canonical Gospels. Of the remainder, some are very similar to those in our Gospels, but have been adapted for gnostic purposes. Others are completely gnostic in origin and form.

It was never written by Thomas and furthermore some of it was heretical. At the very least St. Bridget did write her own books. Furthermore, she’s a saint and not a gnostic. I’ll put more stock in what a saint purportedly saw than some absurd postulations that are downright embarrassing.
 
I’m repeatedly surprised at how Catholic Answers’ resources are never utilized on Catholic Answer Forums. Here’s an interesting video pertinent to your question, @Hope1960 :

 
It doesn’t matter if we are not required. It is acceptable to do so and her writings are regarded very highly in the Church. The OP asked about the birth of Jesus and I would say this is the best explanation they would get.

Just because we are not required to believe in private revelation, that does not make it any less true or less worthy. I believe it to be a special grace from God; take it or leave it.
 
Ok, Mary was free from the pain of childbirth and the seal was unbroken. Jesus was born supernaturally (which my link also said) and it was likened to light shining through a pane of glass but…then is it certain that Jesus did not come down the birth canal? I think all these things could be fact and He could still have come down the birth canal. I need to buy Tim Staples book.
 
Last edited:
You could also really hone in and prepare your question, then ask Staples directly by calling into the radio show when he’s on.
 
Last edited:
I have no difficulty in accepting the virginal birth of Jesus. Why would it be any more difficult to accept the virginal birth than Jesus entering the upper room through a closed and locked door? If God had wanted to provide us biological details he would have done so, but he did not. And if I make it to heaven it would probably be impertinent to ask.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top