Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[De_Maria]

Personally I think our Canon should have all of the books Orthodox do. You know some of the books Jerome did put in his Vulgate aren’t in our Bibles now? 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh were in his translation. 3 and 4 Esdras after 1 and 2 Esdras ( Now known as Ezra and Nehemiah) and the Prayer of Mannaseh following Chronicles.
I also think 3 and 4 Maccabees should be in our Canon because it was in the Septuagint . Makes no sense 1 and 2 are but 3 and 4 aren’t. Also Psalm 151 is in the Septuagint.
It’s almost like Jerome just got a Septuagint that was missing the texts I speak of. Funny how that worked out.

St. Jerome had access to many more books than we do. Not only that, but he was actually updating an older version of the Latin Bible that is lost to us now.

The thing is though, that the Catholic Church has not rejected those books that you mention above. She simply says that anyone who denies the inspiration of the 73 books that are in our Bible, is condemned. Read Trent IV.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm

 

[De_Maria]

I thought the Lord is with all of us upon baptism no?

All those who worthily submit to the Sacrament in faith and humility. But I don’t see the connection to what we’re talking about.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s just an opinion. My opinion is that the word “virginity” doesn’t have to be defined because Our Lady’s condition has been described unequivocally.

No it is not an opinion. Your statement there is a copout. It is absolutely necessary that if there is going to be a debate centering around the use of a word, that the word must be defined.

Virginity, at the time of the First Lateran Council, included the inviolability of the hymen.

No dispute here.
That does not change what I assert as fact that it does not need to be viewed as an essential quality of virginity.

You are avoiding the issue precisely because you are avoiding (not even trying one little bit) to show why anyone should be expected to believe that the biological condition of virgo intacta is a necessary element of the definition of virginity.

Avoiding the question is not the same thing as proving yourself right.

You are not even attempting to prove that it is an essential quality of virginity. You are doing nothing more than asserting it and expecting everyone to agree with you.

I do not agree with you, and I have given my reasons.

I am inviting and asking you to explain your position. I’m listening.

All you have is opinion. I have opinion and support my opinion with proof texts.

No. I have opinion backed up by logic that I am articulating here.

You are merely doing proof-texting, which is considered to be an erroneous and unacceptable method in theology.

I don’t need to. I have quoted you a Church record that says her body was UNINJURED.

Again, all you’re doing is avoiding the issue.

It is an injury in any context.

I disagree. AND I have shown why I disagree.

 

[FrDavid96]

cont’d

Calm down please. No need to get so defensive.

If you would cool off a bit you’d see that you actually agree with the part of my posts that you quoted.

I am saying that a woman’s body behaving in a normal way is indeed normal. It is not to be seen as corrupting her.

I am saying that we should affirm the dignity of women as women. For more on that topic, see John Paul II’s letter.

My unwritten comment (which I decided to hold back) was that reducing the notion of virginity, which is a virtue, to a question of virgo intacta is a symptom of objectifying women and disregards their dignity. That kind of thinking is based on outdated (thankfully) notions that a woman will tell untruths about her true state of virginity and that she must subject herself to intrusive probing in order to “prove” that she is a virgin. I don’t see any dignity in that.

Lastly, your username made me think you were a woman. A simple mistake.

Your comment that your wife has “nothing to be ashamed of” is exactly my own point. That’s what I keep trying to say. She should not feel ashamed that her body behaved in the way the Creator intended. That’s not a cause of shame, it’s a cause of joy! I do not wish her to be hurt (you say she was injured, your words not mine), no that’s not the part I mean. I mean that when her body behaves as a woman’s body take that as a good—unlike the ancients who saw the feminine as defective.

 

[De_Maria]

Calm down please. No need to get so defensive.

I’m not angry.

If you would cool off a bit you’d see that you actually agree with the part of my posts that you quoted.

I am saying that a woman’s body behaving in a normal way is indeed normal. It is not to be seen as corrupting her.

That remains besides the point. The fact is that a torn hymen is an injury.

I am saying that we should affirm the dignity of women as women. For more on that topic, see John Paul II’s letter.

That’s not in question. We’re not talking about any other woman but Our Lady and her condition during the birth of our Lord.

My unwritten comment (which I decided to hold back) was that reducing the notion of virginity, which is a virtue, to a question of virgo intacta is a symptom of objectifying women and disregards their dignity. That kind of thinking is based on outdated (thankfully) notions that a woman will tell untruths about her true state of virginity and that she must subject herself to intrusive probing in order to “prove” that she is a virgin. I don’t see any dignity in that.

Besides the point. We’re talking about Our Lady’s condition during the birth of our Lord.

Lastly, your username made me think you were a woman. A simple mistake.

It happens a lot.

Your comment that your wife has “nothing to be ashamed of” is exactly my own point. That’s what I keep trying to say. She should not feel ashamed that her body behaved in the way the Creator intended. That’s not a cause of shame, it’s a cause of joy!

Injury is not a cause of shame. You’re mixing apples and oranges.

I do not wish her to be hurt (you say she was injured, your words not mine), no that’s not the part I mean. I mean that when her body behaves as a woman’s body take that as a good—unlike the ancients who saw the feminine as defective.

The question is, was our Lady’s hymen torn during the birth of our Lord? The Ancient Church says it wasn’t. The modern Church says it wasn’t. You apparently say that it was. Right or wrong?

 

[De_Maria]

Calm down please.

I’m brief, blunt, to the point and not politically correct. Maybe that’s why you feel that I’m angry. But that’s the farthest thing from my mind

 

[Hope1960]

I think that some of them may have meant that Jesus miraculously appeared through Mary’s tummy and into her arms. I don’t believe that. Not at all.

 

[De_Maria]

I think that some of them may have meant that Jesus miraculously appeared through Mary’s tummy and into her arms. I don’t believe that. Not at all.

Do you have a reason? Or just using the emotional argument again?

 

[Hope1960]

Do I have a reason why I don’t believe that or do I have a reason why I think the CFs, Popes etc. believed that?

 

[De_Maria]

Do I have a reason why I don’t believe that

Yes. Do you?..

 

[FrDavid96]

The question is, was our Lady’s hymen torn during the birth of our Lord? The Ancient Church says it wasn’t. The modern Church says it wasn’t.

You are wrong in saying that the Church says it. Some writings say it, even some saints say it. Fine.

You are making the mistake of FAILING to see the difference between essential teachings and other sentences used to explain those teachings which are incidental and NOT matters of dogma or doctrine.

The Church does NOT teach what you claim. Nowhere does the Church say that anyone must believe that.

It is not in the writings that you’ve quoted. It isn’t there. You only think it’s there because you want it to be there.

You apparently say that it was. Right or wrong?

WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

You have so blinded yourself that you are not even attempting to understand what I’m writing here.

You are so absolutely convinced that I’m wrong that you aren’t even bothering to read what I am writing in the first place. I rather think you haven’t bothered to actually read and think about ANYTHING I’ve written here.

If you did actually bother to take the time to read and think about what I’ve written here, and I mean really think about it instead of just jumping to conclusions, you would not have asked your last question.

 

[De_Maria]

WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.

So, you agree that Our Lady was not injured when giving birth to our Lord? Right?

 

[FrDavid96]

Hope1960:

I think that some of them may have meant that Jesus miraculously appeared through Mary’s tummy and into her arms. I don’t believe that. Not at all.

Do you have a reason? Or just using the emotional argument again?

Because that is actually what some of them DID say.

 

[FrDavid96]

I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.

So, you agree that Our Lady was not injured when giving birth to our Lord? Right?

I absolutely agree with the statement that she was not injured in any way in giving birth. No injury whatsoever.

 

[Hope1960]

Because Jesus was part human, part Divine. I believe that He, in His human nature, entered the world like all humans do.
Sure, He exited the tomb and walked through locked doors but that was during the part of His life when He was an adult and doing signs.
To me, popping out of Mary’s belly and into her arms just seems outlandish TO ME.

 

[De_Maria]

I absolutely agree with the statement that she was not injured in any way in giving birth. No injury whatsoever.

Awesome! I think we have come to agreement.

Sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable.

May God bless you.

 

[FrDavid96]

I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.

So, you agree that Our Lady was not injured when giving birth to our Lord? Right?

You are still missing the entire point of why I wrote the word “wrong” in the first place.

You’re missing it altogether.

You’re missing it because you are STILL so blinded by the idea that you must somehow prove me to be wrong that you continue to be unwilling to comprehend what it is that I am writing.

 

[De_Maria]

I get it.

But, to me, in His infancy, Jesus’ divinity was more, how to put it? in control? Thus, a miraculous birth is more likely. In my opinion.

 

[De_Maria]

We came to agreement, above.

You said:
I absolutely agree with the statement that she was not injured in any way in giving birth. No injury whatsoever.

Awesome! I think we have come to agreement.

Sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable.

 

[Hope1960]

Off Topic: I just wanted to update everyone about my D&C surgery. It’s now scheduled for this coming Tuesday, Nov. 7th. Please pray that I don’t have cancer, and if I do, that God will work through my doctors to cure me.