Mary and Labor Pains

[Roseeurekacross]

Ok let’s follow this logically. Answering ONLY the question, did the Blessed Mother have Labour pains. Any speculation about how Jesus came into this world is just speculation.

We can , though without a doubt answer the question on Labour pain, as its right there in the Bible.

1. The Blessed Virgin is the Immaculate Conception.
   This means Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin.
2. Eve, in the Garden , - ate the forbidden fruit. Eve broke God’s law.
   Eve became tainted with the stain of Original Sin.

What is the punishment for women ( besides death) for what Eve did? Genesis 3:16
biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm

The Blessed Virgin is free of this sin of Eve, therefore free of the punishment - pain in Childbirth.

Surprised you guys aren’t discussing that.

 

[Techno2000]

The Blessed Virgin is free of this sin of Eve, therefore free of the punishment - pain in Childbirth.

Surprised you guys aren’t discussing that.

So it’s plausible that the Baby was born miraculously …right ?

 

[tuffsmurf]

I am not saying what was present, but giving an example of damage that could occur, which would if hymen imperforatus was possessed.

I guess it could have happened in that case, but a girl who had that would get serious medical complications once she hit puberty since the menstrual blood wouldn’t be able to leave the body, probably causing TSS. I think it is safe to assume that Mary did not have those kind of abnormalities.

Mary was a human like us. A very holy human and indeed free from sin, but a human still. It is not because of Mary’s virginity we call her pure, but because of her sinlessness. Mary did remain a virgin her entire life, but not because she would have been impure otherwise (there is nothing impure about a married couple having sex). She chose to devote her life fully to her son and God.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Ok let’s follow this logically. Answering ONLY the question, did the Blessed Mother have Labour pains. Any speculation about how Jesus came into this world is just speculation.

We can , though without a doubt answer the question on Labour pain, as its right there in the Bible.

1. The Blessed Virgin is the Immaculate Conception.
   This means Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin.
2. Eve, in the Garden , - ate the forbidden fruit. Eve broke God’s law.
   Eve became tainted with the stain of Original Sin.

What is the punishment for women ( besides death) for what Eve did? Genesis 3:16
biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm

The Blessed Virgin is free of this sin of Eve, therefore free of the punishment - pain in Childbirth.

Surprised you guys aren’t discussing that.

Death and suffering are consequences of the fall of mankind and of our sins. Jesus was certainly free from any guilt in the fall of man, yet he suffered and died. Mary suffered much in her life too.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What is the punishment for women ( besides death) for what Eve did? Genesis 3:16
biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm

The Blessed Virgin is free of this sin of Eve, therefore free of the punishment - pain in Childbirth.

No, it’s not quite that simple. None of the versions of Genesis 3:16 that are on that site, indicate “the punishment was pain in childbirth”, it was “greatly increased” or “greatly multiplied” or “intensified” pain in childbirth.

I can accept that Mary did not go through the “greatly increased” pain of childbirth due to sin. But not that she had no pain or discomfort whatsoever, because apparently “completely pain free childbirth” was never God’s plan even before the Fall, otherwise He would simply have told Eve “In pain you will bring forth children” and not bother to specify he was “multiply” the pain.

(And this of course is assuming Genesis was a completely literal account of what happened, though I guess it would take this topic too far afield to debate that.)

 

[Techno2000]

The Mystical City of God: Life of the Virgin Mother of God, manifested to Sister Mary of Jesus of Agreda, 1602-1666 - Imprimatur H. J. Alerding, Bishop of Fort Wayne. Rome City, Ind., Aug. 24, 1912.

excerpt :

THE INCARNATION

The sacred evangelist Luke tells us that the
Mother Virgin, having brought forth her firstbegotten
Son, wrapped Him in swathing clothes and placed Him
in a manger. He does not say that She received Him
in her arms from her virginal womb; for this did not
pertain to the purpose of his narrative. But the two
sovereign princes, saint Michael and saint Gabriel, were
the assistants of the Virgin on this occasion. They stood
by at proper distance in human corporeal forms at the
moment when the incarnate Word, penetrating the vir
ginal chamber by divine power, issued forth to the light,

THE INCARNATION 403

and they received Him in their hands with ineffable rev
erence. In the same manner as a priest exhibits the
sacred host to the people for adoration, so these two
celestial ministers presented to the divine Mother her
glorious and refulgent Son.

themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm

 

[Roseeurekacross]

So it’s plausible that the Baby was born miraculously …right ?

The Blessed Virgin, her spouse St Joseph, and God, and His Angels would be the only ones to know the answer to that question. We can say, logically, because Mary is without Original Sin, she is free of its punishments.

Jesus did not suffer death because He was stained by Original Sin!

Jesus suffered death as our paschal sacrifice, our lamb, to free us from sin and satan. It was also the will of His Father, God. And Jesus was obedient to His Will.

Did Jesus not say He had Legion of Angels who would defend Him at any time?

Anyone who believes Jesus suffered death due to having the stain of Original Sin and its punishment should really revisit the Bible, the Catachism
And their Priest. This is a crucial event for our salvation .

The suffering of Jesus and Mary were because of those who are born with Original Sin and its punishments. They are both innocent. Yet look at what they went through for us. Imagine the courage, faith and love, and the gentleness of the Holy Family.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

No, it’s not quite that simple. None of the versions of Genesis 3:16 that are on that site, indicate “the punishment was pain in childbirth”, it was “greatly increased” or “greatly multiplied” or “intensified” pain in childbirth.

I can accept that Mary did not go through the “greatly increased” pain of childbirth due to sin. But not that she had no pain or discomfort whatsoever, because apparently “completely pain free childbirth” was never God’s plan even before the Fall, otherwise He would simply have told Eve “In pain you will bring forth children” and not bother to specify he was “multiply” the pain.

(And this of course is assuming Genesis was a completely literal account of what happened, though I guess it would take this topic too far afield to debate that.)

How do we know what God’s plan for childbirth was initially? How can anyone? No one had given birth yet . God could have meant well you will have an ache or two, and then, voila, baby!. Everyone experiences pain differently. I might find an ache nothing inconvenient.

But labour pain is one of the worst pains a human can undergo. So labour pain means just that, intense rip your guts up , uncontrollable , where are the drugs type pain. That is what we are discussing. Not to scare women about to have their first baby or contemplating marriage and children. The pain is worth it when you have your baby.

Sure The Blessed Virgin had the occasional aches, felt heat, cold, etc.

 

[Vico]

I guess it could have happened in that case, but a girl who had that would get serious medical complications once she hit puberty since the menstrual blood wouldn’t be able to leave the body, probably causing TSS. I think it is safe to assume that Mary did not have those kind of abnormalities.

Mary was a human like us. A very holy human and indeed free from sin, but a human still. It is not because of Mary’s virginity we call her pure, but because of her sinlessness. Mary did remain a virgin her entire life, but not because she would have been impure otherwise (there is nothing impure about a married couple having sex). She chose to devote her life fully to her son and God.

That is not the only type, just an example, we do not know if she was physically normal. The point is that there was not a loss of virginal integrity as would happen naturally.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

(And this of course is assuming Genesis was a completely literal account of what happened, though I guess it would take this topic too far afield to debate that.)

Actually that is a great question. We are free to take the 7 days as our time or God’s time.

But other parts of Genesis are crucial to the foundation, belief and practice of our faith.
Original Sin, is the biggest element that is required to be taken literally.

We are saved through Baptism from Original Sin, we must be Baptised to be Catholic and enter Heaven. John the Baptist and Jesus were both baptising people. From a human perspective they were both martyred for this belief. Jesus gave his life so we could be free of Original Sin.

And even Jesus was symbolically baptised for an example of how important it is to be baptised. Don you just love how Jesus got down and did what we humans do , to show us how important these things are.

 

[tuffsmurf]

That is not the only type, just an example, we do not know if she was physically normal. The point is that there was not a loss of virginal integrity as would happen naturally.

Childbirth had nothing to do with virginity, so therefore Jesus could not have taken away that at birth. The miracle is the way she concieved. Naturally a woman who concieved is not a virgin.

 

[Vico]

Childbirth had nothing to do with virginity, so therefore Jesus could not have taken away that at birth. The miracle is the way she concieved. Naturally a woman who concieved is not a virgin.

I am referring to virgin before, during, and after as explained by St. Pope John Paul II in General Audience 28 August 1996:

1. In a brief formula, the Church traditionally presents Mary as “virgin before, during and after giving birth”, affirming, by indicating these three moments, that she never ceased to be a virgin.

Of the three, the affirmation of her virginity “before giving birth” is, undoubtedly, the most important, because it refers to Jesus’ conception and directly touches the very mystery of the Incarnation. From the beginning it has been constantly present in the Church’s belief.

Her virginity “during and after giving birth”, although implicit in the title virgin already attributed to Mary from the Church’s earliest days, became the object of deep doctrinal study since some began explicitly to cast doubts on it. Pope St Hormisdas explains that “the Son of God became Son of man, born in time in the manner of a man, opening his mother’s womb to birth [cf. Lk 2:23] and, through God’s power, not dissolving his mother’s virginity” (DS 368). This doctrine was confirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which states that the firstborn Son of Mary “did not diminish his Mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it” (Lumen gentium, n. 57). As regards her virginity after the birth, it must first of all be pointed out that there are no reasons for thinking that the will to remain a virgin, which Mary expressed at the moment of the Annunciation (cf. Lk 1:34) was then changed. Moreover, the immediate meaning of the words: “Woman, behold, your son!”, “Behold, your mother” (Jn 19:26), which Jesus addressed to Mary and to his favourite disciple from the Cross, imply that Mary had no other children.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm31.htm

 

[tuffsmurf]

I am referring to virgin before, during, and after as explained by St. Pope John Paul II in General Audience 28 August 1996:

1. In a brief formula, the Church traditionally presents Mary as “virgin before, during and after giving birth”, affirming, by indicating these three moments, that she never ceased to be a virgin.

Of the three, the affirmation of her virginity “before giving birth” is, undoubtedly, the most important, because it refers to Jesus’ conception and directly touches the very mystery of the Incarnation. From the beginning it has been constantly present in the Church’s belief.

Her virginity “during and after giving birth”, although implicit in the title virgin already attributed to Mary from the Church’s earliest days, became the object of deep doctrinal study since some began explicitly to cast doubts on it. Pope St Hormisdas explains that “the Son of God became Son of man, born in time in the manner of a man, opening his mother’s womb to birth [cf. Lk 2:23] and, through God’s power, not dissolving his mother’s virginity” (DS 368). This doctrine was confirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which states that the firstborn Son of Mary “did not diminish his Mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it” (Lumen gentium, n. 57). As regards her virginity after the birth, it must first of all be pointed out that there are no reasons for thinking that the will to remain a virgin, which Mary expressed at the moment of the Annunciation (cf. Lk 1:34) was then changed. Moreover, the immediate meaning of the words: “Woman, behold, your son!”, “Behold, your mother” (Jn 19:26), which Jesus addressed to Mary and to his favourite disciple from the Cross, imply that Mary had no other children.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm31.htm

I think we are talking past each other here. Of course virgin Mary was a virgin during the birth! The only way for someone to stop being a virgin is to have intercourse. The speculations about the details regarding the manner of Jesus’ birth is probably partially caused by the misconception that there are physical signs of virginity (which there are not in a normal female). I trust the church fathers in all theological matters, but They didn’t necessary possess much knowledge about the female anatomy.

 

[Vico]

I think we are talking past each other here. Of course virgin Mary was a virgin during the birth! The only way for someone to stop being a virgin is to have intercourse. The speculations about the details regarding the manner of Jesus’ birth is probably partially caused by the misconception that there are physical signs of virginity (which there are not in a normal female). I trust the church fathers in all theological matters, but They didn’t necessary possess much knowledge about the female anatomy.

Virgin during birth includes physical integrity as given in earlier posts. That is why it is a miraculous delivery.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Virgin during birth includes physical integrity as given in earlier posts. That is why it is a miraculous delivery.

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.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

That is what the catechism states about the virginity of Mary. It doesn’t mention her physique, and since there are no physical differences between a virgin and a non-virgin and I don’t see why her virginal integrity is physical.
That being said, it is fine to believe that Jesus was delievered in a miracolous way, but we do not have to. We have to believe that she is a perpetual virgin, but as said, but virginity is not something physical.

 

[Vico]

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.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

That is what the catechism states about the virginity of Mary. It doesn’t mention her physique, and since there are no physical differences between a virgin and a non-virgin and I don’t see why her virginal integrity is physical.
That being said, it is fine to believe that Jesus was delievered in a miracolous way, but we do not have to. We have to believe that she is a perpetual virgin, but as said, but virginity is not something physical.

There is a confirmation of the physical nature. Blessed Pope John Paul II also mentions the historical references:

cf. Second Roman. Lateran., Can. 3: ID Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et collectio very large, X, col. 1151; Second Tolet. XVI, Symbolum, Art. 22

anche per quanto concerne l’integrità della carne; (also with regard to integrity of the flesh)

And he explains:

“Affirming the reality of the virginal conception of Christ does not mean that in reference to it, we can provide demonstrable evidence of rationale. In fact, the virginal conception of Christ is a truth revealed by God, that man can accept in virtue of obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16, 26).”

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1992/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19920524_concilio-capua.html

 

[Techno2000]

There is a confirmation of the physical nature. Blessed Pope John Paul II also mentions the historical references:

cf. Second Roman. Lateran., Can. 3: ID Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et collectio very large, X, col. 1151; Second Tolet. XVI, Symbolum, Art. 22

anche per quanto concerne l’integrità della carne; (also with regard to integrity of the flesh)

And he explains:

“Affirming the reality of the virginal conception of Christ does not mean that in reference to it, we can provide demonstrable evidence of rationale. In fact, the virginal conception of Christ is a truth revealed by God, that man can accept in virtue of obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16, 26).”

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1992/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19920524_concilio-capua.html

If a virgin was artificially inseminated and later on had the baby, there would be a physical change to her vagana… this didnt happen to the Virgin Mary.

 

[Vico]

If a virgin was artificially inseminated and later on had the baby, there would be a physical change to her vagina… this didn’t happen to the Virgin Mary.

Yes. I imagine that many today do not believe in that physical integrity. We see that icons of the Theotokos with three stars on shoulder, head, shoulder, indicating before, during, and after.


Our Lady of the Sign

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think we are talking past each other here. Of course virgin Mary was a virgin during the birth! The only way for someone to stop being a virgin is to have intercourse. The speculations about the details regarding the manner of Jesus’ birth is probably partially caused by the misconception that there are physical signs of virginity (which there are not in a normal female). I trust the church fathers in all theological matters, but They didn’t necessary possess much knowledge about the female anatomy.

While I do agree with your general skepticism about the hymen as a definite proof of “physical virginity”, I wouldn’t go as far as to say there are no “signs of physical virginity” in a “normal female”, as other than the “imperforate hymen” anomaly there are women with thick hymens who are still considered “normal” yet it would be obvious they were virgins. I do not know what the percentages are, though.

But apparently it is Big T tradition that whatever kind of hymen Mary had, it remained in the same condition before and after the birth of Jesus. Okay, not anything that’s a make or break for me when it comes to Marian doctrine.

 

[steve93]

If Christ could go through locked doors without physically breaking a hole in the door, then I don’t see why He could not pass from the Holy Virgin’s womb to the outside without breaking anything.