Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[Hope1960]

Sorry for the repeat post, I’m trying to delete the first one because it didn’t say whose post I was replying to and posted a second, so that I’d have who I was replying to but I can’t delete the first one.

 

[Hope1960]

Is there dogma on this or are we free to speculate?

 

[Cruciferi]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. “For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” Saying that he had a spiritual cesarean and was not born “Naturally” is heresy. Furthermore, what happens to the fluid and placenta? No, no, it was a traditional birth no more no less.

 

[Hope1960]

What do my questions have to do with a lack of faith?

 

[Vico]

So… that means He was born via the birth canal or miraculously appeared through Mary’s belly?

St. Thomas states:

Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 28 The virginity of the Mother of God >
Article 2. Whether Christ’s Mother was a virgin in His birth? > Reply to Objection 3

We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): “To the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in Whose Birth His Mother’s virginity remained inviolate.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm#article2

 

[Hope1960]

If you’re trying to say Jesus was born by a “spiritual cesarean” I disagree and believe Fr David and the others who say Jesus was born like every other baby.

 

[De_Maria]

OK, you cannot provide any recent Magisterial support for your rather strong views.

They’ve already been provided.

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

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

It can’t get any clearer than that.

 

[FrDavid96]

St. Thomas states:

Summa Theologiae > Third Part > Question 28 The virginity of the Mother of God >
Article 2. Whether Christ’s Mother was a virgin in His birth? > Reply to Objection 3

We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): “To the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in Whose Birth His Mother’s virginity remained inviolate.”

I think we can dismiss that as Thomas speaking about a matter of biology, not a matter of faith. He is equating virginity with the physical “result” (or lack thereof) of giving birth.

This is one of those times when we can honestly say that he’s trying to uphold a man’s view of things rather than uphold a spiritual truth.

He is upholding the value of “ever Virgin.” Absolutely. No disagreement here whatsoever.

I disagree, however, on the definition of the word “virginity.” It should not be taken too far to deny that the birth itself actually happened, but instead was replaced by a miracle.

 

[FrDavid96]

They’ve already been provided.

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

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

It can’t get any clearer than that.

Context. Context. Context.

The statement in LG is not meant to be one of biology.

It does not say “physical integrity” (as you re-phrased it), but “virginal integrity” meaning that our Blessed Mother never ceased to be a virgin; not that her body did not change or did not experience the natural effects of giving birth.

 

[FrDavid96]

We say in the Creeds that He was “born” of the Virgin Mary. We do not say that He emerged from her by some miracle.

Born means born.

 

[ChunkMonk]

It would be a farce? That seems a little strong. Why would a miraculous birth make it a “farce”?

 

[Cathoholic]

Hope1960.

.

So, just to be clear,FrDavid, Jesus was born by traveling down Our Lady’s birth canal, and out her vagina like every other baby, right?

.
Remember Hope1960. Some aspects of this are ABOVE human explanation.

I can’t answer for Fr. David, but I CAN unequivocally say Jesus birth in one sense clearly is NOT “like every other baby.”

Think about the “passing like light” quote from the Roman Catechism that I put up for you.

Would you say that YOU can walk through walls?

No. (Assuming you go to Heaven, you WILL be able to walk through walls someday with your glorified body).

Can you “explain” this how someday you WILL be able to walk through walls like light passes through glass?

No. It’s ABOVE earthly reason.

You CAN think ABOUT it, and probe deeper into this truth, but nobody will ever be able to explain such a miracle–at least in this life.

 

[Vico]

If you’re trying to say Jesus was born by a “spiritual cesarean” I disagree and believe Fr David and the others who say Jesus was born like every other baby.

I thought you would be interested in what St. Augustine thought however. The miraculous nature of the birth is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium to give assent to, but the details are not part of that. I am not going to speculate.

 

[Hope1960]

I mean that she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, her womb and cervix remained closed during childbirth YET at the same time Jesus traveled down the birth canal and out of Our Lady’s vagina. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Hope1960]

So, what do you mean, exactly, IYO? That the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth could be that she was impregnated by the H.S., traveled down her birth canal and came out her vagina without opening her cervix?

 

[FrDavid96]

It would be a farce? That seems a little strong. Why would a miraculous birth make it a “farce”?

Because (if we say that) then Christ did not experience human life—He used magic tricks to make us think He experienced a human life. Exactly this question: was Christ true man? was settled long ago in the earliest Christological debates. If He did not experience a human birth, then He would not be “truly man” by the simple logic that human beings are not born that way.

Same thing with other questions like did He eat? or did He sleep? or did His hair grow? We know He experienced hunger and thirst in His human body. Why? Exactly because His body was human.

Once He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and in the womb of the Virgin, He became a human being. Conception is the moment of the Incarnation, not the moment of birth in Bethlehem.

Once He became man, all the physical limitations and characteristics of a human body apply to Him, and continue to apply until the Resurrection.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I guess that makes sense, but then I know Ven. Bishop Fulton Sheen said that Jesus could not get leprosy from the lepers, but humans can get leprosy from the lepers. Would he be wrong, or is that a different kind of thing? Like when Jesus was attacked by the crowd but they couldn’t lay hands on him… That wasn’t a thing normal men can do. Is there a difference there though, like one is an active choice on his part to perform a miracle and the other is a purely biological event? Could he have actively chosen to be born miraculously?

 

[FrDavid96]

I thought you would be interested in what St. Augustine thought however. The miraculous nature of the birth is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium to give assent to, but the details are not part of that. I am not going to speculate.

And I am going to disagree that the biology of the question is not a “teaching of the ordinary magisterium.” NOT the biology questions.

Ever-Virgin? Absolutely yes, Church dogma. No doubt.

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess that makes sense, but then I know Ven. Bishop Fulton Sheen said that Jesus could not get leprosy from the lepers, but humans can get leprosy from the lepers. Would he be wrong, or is that a different kind of thing. Like when Jesus was attacked by the crowd but they couldn’t lay hands on him… That wasn’t a thing normal men can do.

There are plenty of examples of times when Christ did do things that normal humans cannot do. Of course I’d never doubt that.

What I am saying though is that if he had a body that was totally immune to any disease, it would not be a truly human body. No doubt he was able to prevent his body from contracting leprosy, but that’s not the same thing as saying that his body was different from ours, anatomically or biologically or whatever else, such that it was impossible for that body to contract leprosy. To put that another way, I’d say that He had the power to make sure that none of the leprosy viruses contacted His human body.

Remember what happened when they did lay hands on him—all the way to the Cross. The human body succumbed to the wounds and died.

 

[Inisfallen]

his 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.

I’m not sure I see how giving birth to a child in in the usual way is “contrary to the dignity” of Mary, or how having been born in the usual way was contrary to the dignity of Our Lord. Is childbirth undignified? I don’t think I would dare say that to my wife. I certainly wouldn’t have said it to my mother.