Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[BlackFriar]

By all means start your own Church if you cannot accept what FrDavid rightly observes re this somewhat idiosyncratic “proof-texting” approach to theology and what the Church actually states.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t think so.

I didn’t say it did. I said that the Doctrine clearly states that she was uninjured when giving birth to Our Lord.

The theological Doctrine was written by ancient men who held a different view of virginity than that which you hold.

But it is a Doctrine, as I have shown.

It remains an accepted Teaching as I have shown.

It is a Doctrine of the Church and I won’t question it. In fact, I will do my best to explain it and let other people know the Truth.

It is neither dogma nor doctrine that she remained biologically intact at the BIRTH of Christ. At the Conception (Annunciation) yes, that is dogma. But not the birth event.

A teaching accepted by theologians, even well-regarded ones, even saints, still does not rise the the level that requires assent.

You are mistaken on these 3 points:

1. The distinctions in levels of teaching. One moment you say dogma then another doctrine and another teaching of the saints and still another of accepted theology. These are all different levels. Accepted teachings of theologians is not the same thing as a teaching of the Church that requires the assent of faith.
2. The distinction between the 2 events of the Annunciation/Conception and the Birth. We must believe she remained virgo intacta at the Annunciation because that is essential (I can say why if needed). We are not required to believe she remained virgo intacta through the birth, so long as we maintain that she did remain ever-virgin.
3. The Church does not require anyone to believe as a matter of faith that the definition of a virgin must include the criteria that she remain biologically virgo intacta. Such a requirement simply does not exist, no matter how many times you assert that it does.

 

[Cruciferi]

“The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” Jesus is true God and True Man. He came into this world like a normal human child. There’s nothing undignified about it. Although, it’s believed that Lucifer and his Angels didn’t wish to worship the incarnation. They believed it was undignified for God to be born and become an animal.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Taking St. Augustine theological perspective when the Old Testament is revealed in the New and the New Testament is hidden in the Old.

Isaiah 66 This is what the Lord says:

“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?”
declares the Lord.

7 “Before she goes into labor,
** she gives birth;**
before the pains come upon her,
** she delivers a son.**
8 Who has ever heard of such things?
** Who has ever seen things like this?**
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?

9 Do I bring to the moment of birth
** and not give delivery?” says the Lord.**
“Do I close up the womb
** when I bring to delivery?” says your God.**
10 “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her,
all you who love her;
rejoice greatly with her,

14 When you see this, your heart will rejoice
and you will flourish like grass;
the hand of the Lord will be made known to his servants,

"For nothing is impossible for God"
God allowed the Blessed Virgin Mary to conceive, give birth before labor and close the womb. God Graced the Virgin Mary fully in Keeping her Immaculately and ever Virgin before giving birth, during giving birth and after giving birth. As Isaiah the prophet foretold, “whoever heard of such a thing”?

Peace be with you

 

[Gorgias]

What puzzles me though, is why use the word “during” in the expression of the doctrine? Why not just say that Mary remained ever virgin both before and after the birth of Jesus? Why include “during?”

Because if you only said “before and after”, there are folks who would reply, “A-ha! During the birth, she lost her virginity, but had it restored afterward! Therefore, not “perpetual” virgin… just “restored” virgin.”

 

[Gorgias]

A torn hymen, is an injury.

Again, a torn hymen, is an injury. You’re probably the only person in the world that has ever claimed it wasn’t.

Pardon, but… the context is virginity. So: are you making the claim that “a torn hymen is an injury to virginity”?!?!?

Not that it “can possibly be”… or even “is typically”, but rather, in the sense of a definition, that “torn hymen” = “lost virginity”? If that’s your claim, say it plainly. If it’s not, then move on – many here, over and again, have demonstrated that this isn’t the case.

 

[De_Maria]

By all means start your own Church if you cannot accept what FrDavid rightly observes re this somewhat idiosyncratic “proof-texting” approach to theology and what the Church actually states.

I accept Catholic Teaching. How about you? Have you accepted the infallibility of the atholic Church, yet?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

A torn hymen, is an injury.

Again, a torn hymen, is an injury. You’re probably the only person in the world that has ever claimed it wasn’t.

Pardon, but… the context is virginity. So: are you making the claim that “a torn hymen is an injury to virginity”?!?!?

Not that it “can possibly be”… or even “is typically”, but rather, in the sense of a definition, that “torn hymen” = “lost virginity”? If that’s your claim, say it plainly. If it’s not, then move on – many here, over and again, have demonstrated that this isn’t the case.

Look at the title of the thread. Look at the OP. The subject is Mary and Jesus birth. Somebody else made it about Mary’s virginity at conception.

 

[BlackFriar]

Try and stay on point my friend.

 

[De_Maria]

I have. It is you have strayed.

 

[Gorgias]

Look at the title of the thread. Look at the OP. The subject is Mary and Jesus birth. Somebody else made it about Mary’s virginity at conception.

I’m not talking about ‘conception’, either; I’m talking about virginity. Your quote about “injuries” was from the 1st Lateran Council’s discussion about Jesus’ birth. And so, based on the context of that quotation, I ask you (again): are you saying that an injury to a hymen is an injury to virginity? Simple question: yes or no.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Look at the title of the thread. Look at the OP. The subject is Mary and Jesus birth. Somebody else made it about Mary’s virginity at conception.

I’m not talking about ‘conception’, either; I’m talking about virginity. Your quote about “injuries” was from the 1st Lateran Council’s discussion about Jesus’ birth. And so, based on the context of that quotation, I ask you (again): are you saying that an injury to a hymen is an injury to virginity? Simple question: yes or no.

I’m sticking to thethread topic. Answer this question. Do you believe Mary was injured when giving birth? Yes or no.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sticking to thethread topic. Answer this question. Do you believe Mary was injured when giving birth? Yes or no.

Nice. Evasion. Good tactic, seeing as how you’re pretty boxed in, right now.

My response is: the context of the quote of “injury” is “Mary’s virginity”. So, I answer, “no, Mary’s virginity could not be injured by any any physical injury sustained at Jesus’ birth.”

Your turn: are you saying that virginity can be injured by virtue of the physical state of a hymen?

 

[De_Maria]

You are evading the question. The early Church Fathers say she wasn’t injured. The modern Church continues to say she wasn’t. Do you contradict the Church and say that she was injured giving birth? Yes or no.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

By all means start your own Church if you cannot accept what FrDavid rightly observes re this somewhat idiosyncratic “proof-texting” approach to theology and what the Church actually states.

I accept Catholic Teaching.

You keep using words like doctrine, dogma, teaching as if they all mean the same thing.

The Church clearly possesses a body of teachings that, at various times, some of which have been inconsistent with each other. Overtime these confusions turn to a natural consensus or get more explicitly clarified by formal Papal declarations of varying status and type. These more unified teachings we tend to call doctrines.

Sometimes such grey areas become very formally explicitated in a very precise dogma.

That Mary never knew any man is clearly a doctrine.

That she had to be a biological “virgin” also for this doctrine to be true was clearly a near unanimous teaching amongst the Fathers. Nevertheless it has never risen to the level of a doctrine. In fact the recent Magisterium has clearly taught otherwise as FrDavid observes. This proves it does not have the status of doctrine.

Even the dogma of the Assumption has not fully clarified teaching re biological aspects of Mary’s bodily transfer to heaven. Yes, it is both dogma, doctrine and teaching she is bodily in heaven.

However we have no doctrine yet whether she was dead or alive before her transitus to heaven. We currently have opposing teachings on this matter. We are currently free to believe either.
In this case it is clear to me at least which teaching will eventually become the doctrine (the ancient one that she actually died). This seems to be the reverse situation for what will likely happen for the old biological Virginitas in partu teaching mentioned above.

 

[Gorgias]

You are evading the question. The early Church Fathers say she wasn’t injured. The modern Church continues to say she wasn’t. Do you contradict the Church and say that she was injured giving birth? Yes or no.

Here’s what you quoted:

Mary… gave birth to [Jesus] without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate

I’m not evading your question; I’m framing it up in the context which you provided. So, one last time, after which I’ll conclude you have no interest in answering a reasonable question, fairly asked: is it your position that the natural consequences of physical birth injure virginity?

 

[BlackFriar]

I’m sticking to the thread topic.

Seems like a movable feast given your stange recent comment.

 

[FrDavid96]

… The early Church Fathers say she wasn’t injured. .

What you are trying to do here is draw a rhetorical circle. That much has been obvious from the beginning of your posts about injury.

You are tying to put me into a position where I say “no, she wasn’t injured” so that you can then come back and say “AHA gotcha!”

You will then tell me something along the lines of "If you say she wasn’t injured then you say that she was biologically virgo intacta " (yes, I’m being delicate on the vocabulary.)

Sorry to disappoint you, but…

The problem with what you’re trying to do is that I reject your notion that a broken hymen is an injury. An injury is something that is not supposed to happen. If I bend my arm in a way that the human arm is not supposed to bend, the result is that it breaks. A broken arm is an injury. An injury is, theologically speaking, an injustice, even an evil. It is what results when something that is not supposed to happen does happen.

When a child looses a baby tooth to make room for a new tooth growing beneath it, that is not an injury in the theological sense. That is instead the human body doing exactly what a human body is supposed to do. It might be that if it happens at school, the school nurse fills-out an “injury report” because whenever a child has a loss of blood the school calls it an injury. That’s not how theologians use the word.

Modern day theology would not view the loss of virgo intacta as an injury. That is exactly why I referenced John Paul II’s letter Mulieris Dignitatem especially #29

… In this broad and diversified context, a woman represents a particular value by the fact that she is a human person, and, at the same time, this particular person, by the fact of her femininity. This concerns each and every woman, independently of the cultural context in which she lives, and independently of her spiritual, psychological and physical characteristics, as for example, age, education, health, work, and whether she is married or single.

(continued)

 

[FrDavid96]

You are evading the question. The early Church Fathers say she wasn’t injured. The modern Church continues to say she wasn’t. Do you contradict the Church and say that she was injured giving birth? Yes or no.

Continuing…

The dignity of a woman is not defined by one physical characteristic. Much less is the dignity of a woman’s body defined by one particular part. If we say (as JP II clearly wants us to affirm) that a woman’s body is in-and-of-itself a dignified expression of the human person, then it must follow that when a female body part behaves in exactly the way that the Creator intended it to behave, this is not an injury. It is not a violation of her dignity at all!

The notion that a woman must preserve biological state of virgo intacta because otherwise she becomes corrupt, unclean, unworthy, undignified etc. is a mistaken understanding of the female human person which the (yes male) early theologians embraced and (this is important) which they felt a need to uphold.

The foundation of this mistaken belief is that the female human being is merely a defective male. To their minds, a female body part is not an expression of the value of her as a human person which is what John Paul II is teaching in his letter. To them female body parts were an unfortunate mistake or an incomplete male. And yes, this notion is well documented because it is found throughout Greek philosophy of which those same Church Fathers based their own Christian theology. Aristotle’s thoughts on the inferiority of the female body heavily influence the thinking of those Church Fathers when it comes to this subject.

 

[hope]

I felt you were correct in saying that this is not an injury. In doing a search, I found that

The hymen may stretch on its own or even rupture, during growth and development and be non-existent once a female reaches full-maturity. source. It seems sordid to me to talk about Mary in this way. Virginity is about not knowing man period nothing more. This discussion about the physical part is a pure myth as it never has been an indicator of sexual activity.
It is NOT an injury but a natural event like loosing a tooth.