Mary giving birth without pain

[BibleReader]

Church Militant:

I still don’t see the magisterial documentation that RyanL asked for, and I would like to as well.

C’mon BR, give!

It’s called “The Bible.” The Magisterium established its Canon. I.e., the Roman Catholic Magisterium CREATED it. It really is just as much the work of the Magisterium as an encyclical.

What, don’t you believe that the Magisterium created the Bible!!!

 

[RedDeathsMask]

BibleReader:

Sorry, but the problem is that the teaching of the Magisterium, in the Canon it promulgated, contradicts the Magisterium.

Why don’t so many of my fellow Catholics care what the Roman Catholic Magisteriumj teaches us through the Roman Catholic Bible which the Roman Catholic Magisterium promulgated?

What? Do they regard the Roman Catholic Magisterium’s Bible as their enemy – to be avoided?

Do you see the problem, friend?

The Catholic Bible, promulgated by the Catholic Magisterium, is not trash to be ignored!

Still saying that the magisterium contradicts scripture. I see no difference.

 

[RedDeathsMask]

BibleReader:

It’s called “The Bible.” The Magisterium established its Canon. I.e., the Roman Catholic Magisterium CREATED it. It really is just as much the work of the Magisterium as an encyclical.

What, don’t you believe that the Magisterium created the Bible!!!

The Holy Spirit created the Bible, the Magisterium declared what writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That included the 7 deuterocanonicls (Wisdom) that Martin Luther rejected. Because at the time of Luther, the tradition of the Magisterium (from the coucil of Rome until then) stated that the deuterocanonicals are part of the canon. Luther decided (based on his interpretation of scripture) that the Magesterium had erred and removed them. That lead the Pope to infallibly declare the canon declared since the council of the Rome inspired and binding.

I see this path being walked in this thread.

 

[maria711]

For anyone who may stumble upon this thread, as I just now have in looking up this question, the best answer is here: catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11870-Did-the-Virgin-Mary-suffer-the-pains-of-childbirth

Please read the whole thread, as it is a solid answer to this great question!

This is a very important issue in Church Teaching. Just as the conception of Jesus was mystical and bound in purity, so was His birth.

The Virgin Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.
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 every-day 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. … To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.
CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
PART 1: THE CREED
Article III

We can also know what the Church believes from her prayers:

In the preface of the votive Mass in honor of Mary at the foot of the cross, we read the words: “She who had given Him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of the Church.”
cst-phl.com/marian.html

On the contrary, Augustine says (Sermone de Nativitate supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: “In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain.”
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q28,A2, Replies to Objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man “was born into the world,” according to Isaiah 35:1,2: “Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.”
SUMMA THEOLOGICA
Q35,A6

 

[Nita]

In relation to this topic, I find the following Scripture passage very meaningful:

Isaiah 66:7 * Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things*?

 

[DaveBj]

In relation to this topic, I find the following Scripture passage very meaningful:

Isaiah 66:7 * Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things*?

On the other hand, if Rev. 12:1-2 is to be interpreted as depicting the Virgin Mary, then she did suffer pain at childbirth: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child, and she cried out in the pangs of birth, in anguish for her delivery.”

 

[Nita]

On the other hand, if Rev. 12:1-2 is to be interpreted as depicting the Virgin Mary, then she did suffer pain at childbirth: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child, and she cried out in the pangs of birth, in anguish for her delivery.”

No conflict if one sees “male child” as applying to to the entire Body of Christ, the Church – to both Jesus as the head and the members of the Church are the body.Eph 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

Col. 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church;

and

**CCC #1225 **…The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible “to be born of water and the Spirit” in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from His death. …(St. Ambrose)​

There, at the foot of the cross, is where Mary “cried out in the pangs of birth, in anguish for her delivery”. The Church will be “born” on Easter Sunday; Calvary is the labor.

 

[TimothyH]

I still don’t see the magisterial documentation that RyanL asked for, and I would like to as well.

C’mon BR, give!

Its taught as an extension of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Mary conceived "**without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" **(Council of the Lateran, 649).

That means she was virgin before Jesus was concieved, during her pregnancy, during his birth and after his birth. Virginity does not mean only that she had never been penetrated by a man, but that she was physically intact after Jesus was born. Jesus’ birth did not diminish her physical integrity as a virgin, but sanctified it.

The perpetual virginity is dogma.

-Tim-

 

[DaveBj]

No conflict if one sees “male child” as applying to to the entire Body of Christ, the Church – to both Jesus as the head and the members of the Church are the body.Eph 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

Col. 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church;

and

**CCC #1225 **…The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible “to be born of water and the Spirit” in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from His death. …(St. Ambrose)​

There, at the foot of the cross, is where Mary “cried out in the pangs of birth, in anguish for her delivery”. The Church will be “born” on Easter Sunday; Calvary is the labor.

An interesting interpretation, but “Where the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” The woman in Rev. 12 cried out as she was giving birth to the one “who would rule the nations with a rod of iron.” This is a messianic reference from the Old Testament, and the Messiah who will rule the nations with a rod of iron is Jesus Christ, not the church.

 

[maria711]

An interesting interpretation, but “Where the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” The woman in Rev. 12 cried out as she was giving birth to the one “who would rule the nations with a rod of iron.” This is a messianic reference from the Old Testament, and the Messiah who will rule the nations with a rod of iron is Jesus Christ, not the church.

DaveBj,

Christ and His Church are one:

So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.-Ephesians 5:28-32

*For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another. *-Romans 12:4-6

*Whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

• -1 Corinthians 6:17

 

[Nita]

Originally Posted by DaveBj

An interesting interpretation, but “Where the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” The woman in Rev. 12 cried out as she was giving birth to the one “who would rule the nations with a rod of iron.” This is a messianic reference from the Old Testament, and the Messiah who will rule the nations with a rod of iron is Jesus Christ, not the church.

The Navarre Bible has very good commentary on these passages. Unfortunately, I don’t think the text is available online. Wish it was okay to copy the whole section. But, since it isn’t, I’ll give a few quotes:

The mysterious figure of the woman has been interpreted ever since the time of the Fathers of the Church as referring to the ancient people of Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ, or the Blessed Virgin. The text supports all of these interpretations but in none do all the details fit. … can stand for Israel…

She can also stand for the Church…

The passage can also refer to the Virgin Mary because it was she who truly and historically gave birth to the Messiah,…

…So, the inspired text of the Apocalypse is open to interpreting this woman as a direct reference to the Blessed Virgin who, as mother, shares in the pain of Calvary,… At the same time the woman can be interpreted as standing for the peopl of God, the Church, whom the figure of Mary represents.

The Second Vatican Council has solemnly taught that Mary is a “type” or symbol of the Church,…

The Navarre Bible set is pricey, but well worth it.

The Haydock Bible is available online. Here is a link to their commentary on Revelation 12:
haydock1859.tripod.com/id298.html

 

[DaveBj]

The Navarre Bible has very good commentary on these passages. Unfortunately, I don’t think the text is available online. Wish it was okay to copy the whole section. But, since it isn’t, I’ll give a few quotes:

The mysterious figure of the woman has been interpreted ever since the time of the Fathers of the Church as referring to the ancient people of Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ, or the Blessed Virgin. The text supports all of these interpretations but in none do all the details fit. … can stand for Israel…

She can also stand for the Church…

The passage can also refer to the Virgin Mary because it was she who truly and historically gave birth to the Messiah,…

…So, the inspired text of the Apocalypse is open to interpreting this woman as a direct reference to the Blessed Virgin who, as mother, shares in the pain of Calvary,… At the same time the woman can be interpreted as standing for the peopl of God, the Church, whom the figure of Mary represents.

The Second Vatican Council has solemnly taught that Mary is a “type” or symbol of the Church,…

The Navarre Bible set is pricey, but well worth it.

The Haydock Bible is available online. Here is a link to their commentary on Revelation 12:
haydock1859.tripod.com/id298.html

I’ve read the Navarre commentary’s comments on this passage; nice job of laying out all interpretations and saying, “Take your pick.” The biggest quibble I have is with the interpretation that the woman represents the Church, because it was not the Church that gave birth to Christ. If anything, it was the opposite.

I regularly use the on-line Haydock for my own study times.

Some of the reasoning behind the thought that Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth follows the reasoning that pain in childbirth is a result of original sin; Mary did not have original sin; therefore she did not have pain in childbirth. However, it frequently happens that ordinary women give birth without pain; a few contractions, and out pops the baby. In the real world, there is no hard-and-fast connection between being a sinner and having pain in childbirth.

 

[Nita]

I’ve read the Navarre commentary’s comments on this passage; nice job of laying out all interpretations and saying, “Take your pick.”

You know, I never see it as a “take your pick”, but rather “take them all”. The various senses (CCC #115-117, literal and spiritual, …) in which Scripture can communicate give it such a wide and beautiful depth of meaning.

The biggest quibble I have is with the interpretation that the woman represents the Church, because it was not the Church that gave birth to Christ.

When the “woman” represents the Church, then the “male child” can be seen when someone is “born” thru the life of grace communicated thru Baptism – the grace merited by Jesus on the cross. They are “born” and become members of the Body of Christ

Here’s one of my favorite Chrysostom quotes. Any who love typology will like this one.“There flowed from His side water and blood.” Beloved, do not pass over this mystery withput thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the eucharist lowe from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam. … As God then took a ribfrom Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from His side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after His own death.

Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to Himself and what food He gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. …,.

St. John Chrysostom
Liturgy of Hours, Vol. 2, Good Friday Office of Readings

And, the Church continues to provide the life of grace through the other Sacraments.

It is because the Sacraments are entrusted to the Church, dispensed through her, that she is allegorically seen as the woman in this passage. It is also why the Church is referred to as Mother.
The Church did not give life to the physical, mortal body of Christ; it was thru Mary that He was born in that way.
But it is through the Church (sacraments) that the Mystical Body of Christ was,is, and will be born.

 

[Nita]

INDENT]“There flowed from His side water and blood.” Beloved, do not pass over this mystery withput thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the eucharist lowe from his side, …
St. John Chrysostom
Liturgy of Hours, Vol. 2, Good Friday Office of Readings [/INDENT]

Made a couple typos (in red above) - and was too late to edit.
withput – should be without
lowe – should be flowed

 

[Truthstalker]

Any who love typology will like this one…

I love typology. That is a beautiful and profound quote - do you know where the source is from which the Liturgy got that? I recently finished reading his sermon series “On the Statues”.

John C. left us a huge amount of material. The Orthodox praise him as the one theologian whose works they find no fault with. His Easter sermon is read every Easter in every Orthodox church!

 

[Truthstalker]

Made a couple typos (in red above) - and was too late to edit.
withput – should be without
lowe – should be flowed

Not a problem! Thanks for trying!

 

[Nita]

I love typology. That is a beautiful and profound quote - do you know where the source is from which the Liturgy got that? I recently finished reading his sermon series “On the Statues”.

John C. left us a huge amount of material. The Orthodox praise him as the one theologian whose works they find no fault with. His Easter sermon is read every Easter in every Orthodox church!

The identification given in the Liturgy of Hours says:
From the Catecheses by Saint John Chrysostom, bishop
(Cat. 3, 13-19: SC 50, 174-177)
Unfortunately, I do not know what all the info in the parentheses means.

Happy to see you around again in the Apologetics forums.

 

[Truthstalker]

The identification given in the Liturgy of Hours says:
From the Catecheses by Saint John Chrysostom, bishop
(Cat. 3, 13-19: SC 50, 174-177)
Unfortunately, I do not know what all the info in the parentheses means.

Happy to see you around again in the Apologetics forums.

I don’t know what they mean either.

It is nice to post with you. As I recall, you are very pleasant and knowledgeable to discuss stuff with.