Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
De_Maria said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
Is the subject of “injury” off-topic or is it on-topic?
Click to expand...
The topic is Mary and Jesus birth. The point I’m making is that it was a miraculous birth because the Church Teaches that Our Lady sustained no injuries during childbirth.

Apparently, you believe her hymen was ruptured. Thats why you want to claim that a ruptured hymen is not an injury.

Its sounds to me like you really want her hymen to be ruptured. And that is really strange.
Click to expand...
So apparently, the subject is now “on-topic” again?

Do I need to get one of those little signs like they make for dishwashers, one that says “on topic” on one side and “off topic” on the other side so I can put it on my monitor and flip it back-and-forth according to your whims of whether it is on-or-off at any given moment?

When you say “it sound to me like…” what you’re really saying is that you have not yet even begun to understand the conversation here.

You are so determined to make some point about “injury” that you aren’t seeing what this conversation is even about.

I outlined it earlier. Apparently you ignored that too.
 
I would think that a priest/theologian would know more about this than we do.
 
Perhaps. But the point he and the others are arguing is moot.

So far, no one has claimed that Mary suffered a ruptured hymen during childbirth.
And so far, no one has disputed that Mary is ever virgin before during and after childbirth.

So, what are they arguing about? Their private speculations?

The Church teaches that Mary was not injured at childbirth. Case closed.
 
The apologist Dave Armstrong has a nice roundup of the doctrine of “virginitas in partu”, including physical virginity with an intact hymen.

And yes, this is an ancient doctrine. And yes, it is in fact at the level of dogma, although there is dispute over whether it is “de fide” or one step down, at “sententia certa” (ie, you have to believe it because it ties in closely to “de fide” stuff).

There has been a lot of squeamishness about women’s genitalia that has prevented frank religious instruction about this in our age, whereas people back in the day were very matter-of-fact about it.

Of course Mary’s hymen didn’t have to remain intact for her to remain a virgin sexually. But then, there didn’t have to be a Star, or singing angels, or any of the other signs. Mary’s continued physical virginity is a sign screaming LOOK! THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF, just like white robes and crowns and the wounds on Christ’s hands and feet.

Heck, Christ would have been both God and man if He’d been born with a defective willy; but He wasn’t, and that was a sign too. And that’s why you see all those Renaissance paintings showing Baby Jesus with no diaper on; the artist is showing an important sign of the Incarnation of Jesus, the Second Adam. And Mary is shown breastfeeding for many prophetic and Scriptural reasons, but mostly to show that she was truly virgin and mother.

Oh, and “virginal integrity” means virginal wholeness-of-hymen, just like the physical integrity of an airplane means there aren’t any holes in it.

And St. Thomas Aquinas had questions about the Immaculate Conception of Mary (ie, by her mom, St. Ann), not about the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.

As for the question of birth canal or no birth canal, it doesn’t really matter and there has been no pronouncement either way. What counts is that the birth was miraculous, right down to how it physically happened, and the hymen didn’t get affected. Many theologians like seeing the birth canal and hymen as the closed arch and gate of Ezekiel’s prophecy (which is part of why Mary is called Porta Caeli). Others like the closer Adam analogy. Either way, Jesus passed through a closed door, and Mary felt no pain. There are probably a few other alternatives on the manner of birth; but it wasn’t like a normal birth, just like Jesus’ conception was not normal. If the conception doesn’t worry you, why would the birth?

There are plenty of holy matriarchs and women saints who have given birth in edifying normal ways, if we need role models.
 
Last edited:
I wish “someone” would have the guts to put this bizarre and disturbing thread out of its misery. Truly, only on the internet will you find this kind of rubbish. Disgraceful 😑
 
I cannot discern your position: do you believe that Jesus had perfectly ordinary birth, or a completely extraordinary birth?
 
I would just like a simple response so that I know which position you are advocating. I came late to this thread, and cannot follow it’s progression easily.
 
De_Maria said:
So far, no one has claimed that Mary suffered a ruptured hymen during childbirth.
Click to expand...
I think it has been stated a number of times by a number of persons that such is not at odds with any “doctrine” of the Church Universal in time and place. It is at odds with the “teaching” of most of the early church Fathers.

It is not at odds with current doctrine because current doctrine currently declines to assert that any particular biological signs of virginity are necessary to support the doctrine that Mary knew no man ever.

Your personal English translation/interpretation of the Magisterially used Latin words translated as “no loss of integrity” to make your case is at odds with FrDavid’s interpretation/translation of the expression.

When you can demonstrate a case for your translation or advise your qualifications in the Latin language and the Church theology attached to it maybe we will take your compulsive and empty come-backs to FrDavid more seriously.

Until then may we suggest you do some research to see whether FrDavid is correct or not in his Latin understanding of the word integritas. Or maybe just accept what he says with grace.
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
Perhaps. But the point he and the others are arguing is moot.
Click to expand...
Flipping sign to “off-topic”
So far, no one has claimed that Mary suffered a ruptured hymen during childbirth.
And so far, no one has disputed that Mary is ever virgin before during and after childbirth.
Click to expand...
Flipping sign to “on-topic”
So, what are they arguing about? Their private speculations?
Click to expand...
Flipping sign to “off-topic”
The Church teaches that Mary was not injured at childbirth. Case closed.
Click to expand...
Flipping sign to “on-topic”

Still wrong.

You are failing to make a distinction between what is essential to the teaching and what is secondary to the explanation of the teaching.

No where does the Church teach that anyone must believe that it is essential to belief in the Virginity of Mary that during birth her body did not do what bodies do when giving birth (discretion here).

You keep claiming it, but it is not true.

You just insist on conflating the actual teaching of the Church with secondary commentary about the overall theology of the event.

And once again, I will point out that you have not made even the slightest attempt to dispute what I have written here.
Not even a teensy tiny bit.
 
Okay, then, you can read Msgr. Calkins’ article on Virginitas in Partu, including how the CDF/Holy Office lowered the boom in 1960 on anybody claiming Mary wasn’t physically a virgin.

SPOILER ALERT: In 1953, a German theologian named Mitterer claimed that modern people couldn’t possibly believe in Mary being an intact virgin during and after birth, and that it couldn’t possibly matter because virginity isn’t about hymens. (Sound familiar?) The Holy Office was not amused (and another Dave Armstrong article says they even lowered the boom on Dr. Ott the dogma guy for mentioning it in order to refute it). They said any talk about a lack of physical virginity even being thought possible distressed the Faithful and went against all the tradition of the Church.

Mary conceived by a miracle, and gave birth by a miracle, to a miraculous Child. It’s a mystery. But it’s nothing new that people haven’t known about. The other version is what’s new and strange and unheard of.

(The real question is how the creatures of the world knew not to react to Jesus at all times, so that the hills were not always skipping like a happy dog when He came out to play. It wouldn’t have been surprising if the birds of the air were always following Mary around like a Disney princess; what’s surprising is that they didn’t. Maybe it’s what the angels did – they kept critters on a leash, so they could keep themselves from doing the laundry and the dishes for her.)
 
Last edited:
The important word isn’t even “iniuria.” It’s “integritas,” wholeness.

Virginal integritas means the hymen is still there.

Similarly, there’s a famous quote from Phaedrus’ fables about the “integritatis testes” not being there, when it came to a eunuch.

Now, if we want to dispute more fun stuff on a strict basis of logic, with no traditional biographical information to get in the way, we can always dispute whether or not Mary and Jesus had wisdom teeth, and if they were more according to God’s plan if they were usable as teeth or if they were just evolved out entirely.
 
Last edited:
runningdude said:
I would just like a simple response so that I know which position you are advocating. I came late to this thread, and cannot follow it’s progression easily.
Click to expand...
You want me to go to the effort of a dedicated précis of my position for yourself because you don’t want to make that 15 minute effort for yourself by back-reading a discussion you came into late?

Well, freshmen only ever try that once when they walk late into the common TV room and ask residents for a quick run-down on the movie plot don’t they? 🙂.

See post #415
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the correction - it seems to make FrDavid’s case even stronger if that is the Latin word in question.
 
Hope1960 said:
On another thread (as well as ol threads from long ago), it was mentioned that when Jesus was born, Mary’s womb was “opened.”

I know that some people debate this and say Jesus was born in a miraculous way (through Mary’s tummy?)

I also know Mary is ever Virgin. So what, if anything, does the Church teach on this?
Click to expand...
I think the teaching of the Church that Mary remained a virgin in the very act of giving birth to Jesus simply means that Jesus passed through Mary’s womb or birth canal miraculously (not necessarily through Mary’s tummy), that is, without opening it as in natural births. Similarly, Jesus went through the apparently closed and sealed tomb where he was buried upon his resurrection and where Jesus passed through the closed doors in one of his resurrection appearances to the apostles. I think in the tradition of the Church the Church’s teaching that Mary remained a virgin in Jesus’ birth undoubtedly means that Jesus was born miraculously from Mary’s womb without opening her womb.

From Vatican II Lumen Gentium: then also at the birth of our Lord, who did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it" (#57). This text directs us to footnote 10 which cites three sources. Firstly, Council of Lateran (649), canon 3: …Him, who before all ages was born of God the Father, in this last age…was conceived without male seed by the Holy Spirit, and was begotten incorruptly, her perpetual virginity remaining also after birth. Secondly, Pope St Leo the Great (449): …He was conceived by the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin, who brought Him forth so preserving her virginity intact, just as she conceived Him with her virginity intact. Thirdly, from St Ambrose:
“‘This door will be closed and it will not be opened.’ This good door is Mary, who was closed and was not opened. Christ passed through her but did not open her…There is a door of the womb, although it is not always closed; indeed only one was able to remain closed, she through whom the virgin’s offspring came forth without loss of genital intactness. Hence the Prophet (Ezech. 42:2) says: ‘This door will remain closed: it will not be opened, and none will pass through it, that is no man; because the Lord, he says, the God of Israel will pass through it. And it will remain closed, that is before and after the passage of the Lord it will be closed; and it will not be opened by anyone, nor has it been opened.’” (Translation from Fr. Peter Fehlner).

From the CCC#499: The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. The footnote (#154) to this text cites seven sources. The first is from Pope St Leo the Great as cited above. The second is from the same Pope St Leo the Great and in the same letter but listed as DS 294. Here St Leo says that Christ’s birth “was miraculous.”
 
(continued)

The fourth is from Pope Pelagius (557) in which he says: …and that Christ Jesus…was born, while his mother’s virginity remained intact: for the Virgin remained such in bearing him just as she had in conceiving him. The fifth is from the Lateran Council (649) as quoted above. The sixth is from the Creed of the Council of Toledo (693) in which is stated: And as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also she experienced no loss of her integrity; for she conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin… The seventh is from the Council of Trent in which it is stated as an error against the faith that Mary "did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth [Christ]…

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
The Nativity Of Christ Transcends The Order Of Nature
Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from everyday examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.

From the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas. St Thomas holds the perpetual virginity of Mary even in the nativity of Jesus in which he explicitly states that the birth of Christ from Mary’s womb was miraculous, that is, Jesus passed through Mary’s womb or birth canal without opening it. I think it is safe to say that St Thomas here is holding to the traditional doctrine of the Church from the fathers, popes, and various councils as already cited. I believe St Bonaventura says the same and most likely all the great medieval theologians.
 
Last edited:
Mintaka said:
The apologist Dave Armstrong has [a nice roundup of the doctrine of “virginitas in partu”]…
Click to expand...
While he writes covcincingly, I remain unconvinced.

He is still equating the Virginity as a concept (we all agree “no relations”) with the physical sign of it, which is not even always accurate.

The words “virginity in partu” mean “while giving birth” they do not mean (as many try to imply) that there was no change to her body. It simply means that she remained a virgin.

This is what I keep addressing, although it’s been a while now since I mentioned it.

It is not an absolutely necessary condition of virginity that the woman’s body remain unchanged (virgo intacta).

Yes, the early Fathers thought that way. There is no reason why we cannot re-think this in light of a better understanding of the dignity of the human female body, especially in light of more contemporary theology of the body of John Paul II (again, Mulieris Dignitatem especially #29)

Note that this is the first time in the history of the Church that the Catholic Church finally says that a woman’s body is dignified in-and-of-itself, as the fully human, female incarnation of the human species. John Paul II would have been declared a heretic by any one of those Church Fathers upon reading Mulieris Dignitatem #29

The insistence on the criteria of virgo intacta does not uphold any theological value. It does not uphold any necessary element of the faith. It merely upholds an outdated, and yes misogynistic view of the female body as deficient and the female intellect as dishonest—because it was the only that that a man could be assured that a woman was a virgin; even though it isn’t even a completely accurate or reliable test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top