Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[BlackFriar]

What is the main point of your contribution exactly?

The only thing I saw of note in the article was the author was so intent on proving ancient witness of a tradition handed down re the factual “intactness” of Mary (strangely only starting with Irenaeus in 200AD) that he inadvertently quoted the same Irenaeus also asserting that her womb was opened (“opening in a pure way the pure womb which regenerates men for God.”)

Yet it is clear the “tradition” we are here being advised to hold as dogma/doctrine is that both “intactness” and “unopenness” go hand in hand. But apparently not for the Father whom its alleged handed this factual tradition down to us.
In other words, this argument doesn’t seem to hold water.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

Here’s where I disagree with the conclusion.

The birth can still be miraculous without being at the same time contrary to biology.

[Edit about 10 minutes after posting: I mean “contrary to biology” in the way I’ve been speaking in this thread.]

We can affirm the miraculous birth without necessarily needing to affirm that Mary’s female body did not do what female human bodies do when they give birth. There is not an absolute contradiction between those two.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

I am not so convinced about the part of the Holy Office.

I’ve read several accounts of that admonition online in the course of this discussion here. Lots of people offer their thoughts on what it says, but no one quotes it (oddly enough, not a single one), and those who do reference it contradict each other. One uses it to prove the point one way, another uses it to prove the same point in the opposite way.

I’ve tried to find, but can’t. It’s somewhere in AAS 1960 but I cannot find it inside there and I’m not going to read a nearly 500 page PDF in Latin all the way through. I’ve tried keyword searches, but can’t find it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Okay, then, you can read …,

I’ve read it through about 4 times now.

Each time I read it, the merely polemic nature of the article, typical of e-zines, most especially Marian e-zines comes through even stronger. He builds up straw-men then knocks them down. He accuses the other 2 theologians by asking rhetorically “how did they know?” meaning: were they there? Well, is he claiming that he was there?

 

[runningdude]

Thank you, Father David, for speaking clearly and directly regarding the changing theological understanding of virginity.

 

[Gorgias]

So… a simple question for anyone from the “the meaning of ‘virgin during childbirth’ requires that Mary’s womb was not opened” camp:

If Jesus did not open Mary’s womb, why does Scripture explicitly say that He did?
Luke 2:22-24:

When the days were completed for their purification* according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.

And, just to drive the point home: if your interpretation of the doctrine requires an “unopened womb”, doesn’t this then imply that Scripture is mistaken on this account? That is, doesn’t your interpretation lead to the conclusion that Scripture isn’t inerrant?

(Or, instead, since Scripture is inerrant, doesn’t this mean that your interpretation is what is in error?)

 

[BlackFriar]

So these campers must also accept the sun miraculously orbits the earth because to deny this fact of science is to deny Biblical inerrancy…also the very reason Galileo was condemned.

Though I am not so sure about your above quote.
Its really a titular expression than a descriptive one.
Plane “black boxes” arent black.

Though if @De_Maria was consistent with his proof-texting autisticisms here as he is with Magisterial statements then you would have him snookered of course.

 

[JimG]

The more I read about this, the more it seems to be primarily a disagreement between earlier theologians and modern theologians. I’m not entirely sure why we should prefer the later interpretations to the traditional interpretations.

 

[BlackFriar]

Perhaps because we find biological signs of virginity, or not, fallible indicators thereof. Greek men of that time took them extremely seriously.

 

[BlackFriar]

We can affirm the miraculous birth without necessarily needing to affirm that Mary’s female body did not do what female human bodies do when they give birth. There is not an absolute contradiction between those two.

This is the only remaining loose end that I can see.
What then was the miracle of Virginitas in Partu if Marys biology and Jesuss birth was the same as any mothers (apart from perhaps lesser labour pains which is not wholly unusual)?

 

[JimG]

Maybe so. I’m just wondering if that is sufficient reason for disregarding an apparently longstanding and firmly established tradition. And earlier Fathers and theologians were of course closer in time to the actual event than we are.

 

[JimG]

This is the only remaining loose end that I can see.

What then was the miracle of Virginitas in Partu if Marys biology and Jesuss birth was the same as any mothers (apart from perhaps lesser labour pains which is not wholly unusual)?

Yes, if it was a normal birth, the question is, in what sense could it be considered miraculous.

 

[Hope1960]

That Mary gave birth to the Son of God.

 

[JimG]

That Mary gave birth to the Son of God.

Yes, that’s miraculous enough, but it’s a result of the incarnation of Jesus in Mary’s womb at the Annunciation, more than of the birth itself.

 

[BlackFriar]

I’ve tried to find, but can’t. It’s somewhere in AAS 1960 but I cannot find it inside there and I’m not going to read a nearly 500 page PDF in Latin all the way through. I’ve tried keyword searches, but can’t find it.

Here you go.
A 1960 “monitum”
http://www.sedevacantist.com/download/file.php?id=22&sid=6d9a5317f5a3045c744c783ef0a34318

It doesn’t quite say what the “de fide” camp want to say.
The authorities seem upset more by lack of delicacy or poorly researched discussion than any debate on the matter per se.

While it does note some positions are in error it doesn’t say what those positions are.
However it clearly sees room for debate on unstated points but decries the crudity of expression.

 

[BlackFriar]

Theologically still not correct Hope.

Like Transubstantiation this is more correctly called a mystery or a “miracle of faith” (ie by analogy or poetically).

Miracles in the strict sense are not of “faith” but “in the senses”. Evident to non-believers also.
That the man Jesus is God is not evident to the senses.

And if anything physical could guarantee that it would seem to be His conception rather than his birth…as @JimG observes.

 

[BlackFriar]

And earlier Fathers and theologians were of course closer in time to the actual event than we are.

And this is the other leg of weakness.
As the above article attests, despite assertions it was handed down as a private fact from the apostle John the case isn’t made. We are led to believe this is proved in AD 200 by Irenaeus (disciple of Ignatius, disciple of John). Yet Irenaeus doesn’t actually say any such thing. He is simply one of the first to invent Mariology, finding unlikely facts about the Mother of God simply by tenuous, arbitrary and unlikely allegorical linkages with the Old and New Testaments.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I remember this monitum. It was in the rather sad era of Cardinal Ottaviani. It was, as you say, really more concerned, as the Office articulated, with the protection of the “fragile sensibilities of the lay faithful.”

I would suggest that, in addition to Don Arthur’s article that someone has found, @FrDavid96 might find of interest the treatment by the successor of Cardinal Ottaviani, the recently departed Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Müller. He will find it in Katholische Dogmatik: Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie which is what I used concerning virginitas in partu when I taught Mariology in the final years at the time while he was still Bishop of Regensburg.

If Father is not fortunate enough to speak German, he will find something of it via the American periodical, Homiletics and Pastoral Review.

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller and the Virgin Birth - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

In treating the Virgin birth, Gerhard Ludwig Müller carefully identifies what the Catholic Church actually does teach, and cautions the reader that the

www.hprweb.com

When I have cited in other threads of this forum other documents to the woman who signs her posts “de Maria”, I have found that Maria actually does not read – or want to read – documents. I can only assume she has some problem in being able to do so. She said in one post to me that she only wants things explained to her…not to read documents. To make clear, therefore, I am posting this citation for the benefit of a confrere in the priesthood.

 

[BlackFriar]

A very pleasant surprise indeed Fr. Welcome back to CAF Reloaded from the other side.
From your final comments back then I was aware you had significant misgivings re making the restart.
I am really pleased that despite your misgivings you are willing to keep trying here.
Many other “lurkers” on CAF am sure will be of the same opinion even if they say little.

It seems you have also worked out that an underscore is needed to keep the old logon name.
(BTW de_Maria is a male, his logon name appears to refer to the Mother of God).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

But surely you are mistaken.

Maria, of course, would be a woman.

Her posts are clearly “de Maria”…“from Maria” It is a lovely user name that Maria was fortunate to be able to have…I am sorry she has some problem or another with reading documents.

I am only just back in these days of the climax of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, since it touches on one aspect of my life’s work. Besides, I suspected that there would be…falsehoods being said by certain contributors here.

The anniversary throughout the world and across the year has been tremendous. There are, let us say, a few more things coming up in its regard that may or may not occasion more threads on the forum…it is mostly Americans here, though, so maybe not. The most interesting things, of course, are in German for this anniversary.

The American bishops have decided to prolong the commemoration of the anniversary. Very pleased by that decision, of course. The American bishops are good in so many ways…and they are getting better as the weeks and months pass, I have noticed.

I am, anyway, still checking threads on the anniversary here that have not closed yet, when I happened upon this thread. So, Hello.

I am so sad to find how horrible everything has become in this new forum since the former moderators are gone and also given the new format, which leaves so much to be desired. My goodness! It is very sad. And more to the point, it is absolutely painful to the eyes. Perhaps that is Maria’s problem…though reading documents on the Vatican website – or any European website for that matter! – is far more reader friendly than this is.

I find the new forum is actually worse than I had imagined…and that is saying quite a lot, as you seem to remember. The quality of posts has decidedly…plummeted.

Cheers. Do Black Friars proud by your good and informative theological postings here. Contemplare et contemplata aliis tradere…and all that, you know.