Perpetual virginity means?

[Antonio_B]

DougL:

I have no problem with the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mother of God. But I do find it odd that some describe her perpetual virginity as if it means Jesus was not born naturally, vaginally. I heard a priest on EWTN say recently that at birth Jesus passed mysteriously from the inside to the outside of Mary. This to preserve her perpetual virginity since childbirth necessarily breaks the hymen? (Since when is an intact hymen true virginity anyway?) Is there any authorative teaching on what we are supposed to believe about perpetual virginity beyond the simple fact of it?

What I’d like is for us just to call it perpetual virginity and leave it at that without manufacturing unnecessary scenarios that betray our own cultural limitations.

Another quick example of unnecessary and unhelpful romantization is Luther’s “Away in a Manger” in which the baby Jesus “no crying he makes.” What is wrong with the baby Jesus crying? Though God, he entered 100% as a man into this vale of tears. He obviously forewent divine perks (the devil tempted Jesus to enjoy those perks in the wilderness temptations).

The moral: why must we embellish where we have no authority to embellish? We don’t believe cleverly devised myths; let’s not turn our beliefs into fables. The author of the Bay Psalm Book made a good point when they said, “God’s altar does not need our polishings.”

Just last week I was explaining to my students the meaning of mystery within the context of religions in general, since my class is entitled The Religions of the World. I explained to them that a mystery is something one can’t fully comprehend. I gave them a little story, the story of how St. Augustine as he is walking on a beach, finds a child who has a bucket and is pouring the water of the ocean into the bucket. St, Augustine approaches the child and asks him “What are you doing?” and the child replies, “I’m putting all the water of the ocean into this bucket!” St. Augustine immediately says, “That’s impossible, because you can’t put the immensity of the ocean in a tiny little bucket of water since the bucket does not have the capacity to hold all of the ocean.” The child replies, “That’s right, it is as impossible as you trying to understand the mystery of the Trinity,” and then the child disappears. The immensity of the ocean represents God and the bucket represents our intellect. Just as the water of the entire ocean can’t be held in a tiny bucket, neither can the understanding of who God is can be held in the limits of our tiny mind. The birth of Our Lord is a mystery. All the Fathers of the Church have said that it was miraculous and left it at that. It is hard for us to comprehend how a sinless woman like Mary could have suffer “pain” since pain and death are the result of sin. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches affirm that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ, during the birth of Christ, after the birth of Christ and remains a Virgin, That is one of the four mariological dogmas.

Now, is it hard to comprend? Not if you believe in miracles and their purpose. If God created the entire universe and all that is in it, why could he not preserve His Mother from any violation of her physical integrity?

You are right, virginity means not just physical integrity but purity of intention and purity of heart.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

mlchance:

Private revelations are not doctrine.

Genesis does not say that pain in childbirth is a consequence of the Fall. Genesis 3:16 says (in part, emphasis added): “To the woman he said: ‘I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing’”. In order for the something to be intensified, it is reasonable to assume that it must have already been present in a lesser degree.

In Revelation 12 in John’s vision of Mary, we read, “She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.”

Mary remained a virgin. She never had sexual intercourse. Jesus was her only child, conceived miraculously through the power of the Holy Spirit.

That is all that Catholics must believe about Mary’s perpetual virginity.

– Mark L. Chance.

Since when is a mariological dogma “private revelation?”

BTW, although we do not have an obligation to believe private revelations, we can rely on them because the Church accepts them and because they don’t contradict the public revelation of the Church.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

DougL:

As the originator of this thread, I want to thank you all for responding maturely to my questions about sentimentalizing Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m relieved I didn’t scandalize anyone. I’m also glad we have the catechism.

Mary’s unique situation as the spouse of the Holy Spirit and mother of the Son justifies the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. If she had to be sinless so that Jesus, her own flesh and blood and genes, could be without stain of original sin, then it seems only logical that she escaped natural death.

Yet she was still subject to the consequences of sin in a sinful world. By uniting with her Son’s passion, she suffered psychologically and spiritually more than anyone. It’s possible she also suffered pain in childbirth, even though that pain is listed as one of the consequences of sin she did NOT inherit. I don’t think we need to force an answer to the open question of whether she suffered in childbirth. (You know some ordinary women do not suffer in childbirth, escaping the curse for reasons having apparently nothing to do with their sinfulness.)

Again, thanks to all.

The Church’s teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary has nothing to do with sentimentalizing anything and everything to do with accepting the miraculous nature of Our Lord’s birth.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Penni:

would it not stand to reason that Mary would *not *have experienced a “normal” childbirth (pain included) since according to Catholic tradition, she, too, was born without the stain of original sin? wasn’t one of the consequences of Eve’s sin that there would be pain in childbirth?

I do believe you are correct in your understanding of Church teaching regarding Mary.

Antonio

 

[Ghosty]

Again, it does not state that the pains of childbirth would be given, but that they would be increased. Animals also suffer during childbirth, after all, despite their not inheriting Original Sin.

 

[mlchance]

Antonio B:

Since when is a mariological dogma “private revelation?”

I’m not referring to dogma. I’m referring to folks referencing the mystical visions of people as if those visions provided dogmatic certainty.

It is not dogma that Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth.

It is dogma that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

See the difference?



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Antonio_B]

mlchance:

I’m not referring to dogma. I’m referring to folks referencing the mystical visions of people as if those visions provided dogmatic certainty.

It is not dogma that Mary did not suffer pain in childbirth.

It is dogma that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

See the difference?



– Mark L. Chance.

That’s not what I have read but I’ll check my sources again.

Sure we don’t have to believe those mystical visions of saints, but if they don’t contradict the official teaching of the Church, we can indeed rely on them.

Antonio

 

[Ghosty]

I wouldn’t say they should be relied upon more than anyone else’s thoughts or visions for the simple reason that they are tailored to the specific saint’s psyche for a specific purpose. Since they are not necessarily geared towards teaching, like public revelation is, they aren’t given any kind of assurance towards accuracy. We don’t know why the vision was given the way it was, so we can’t use it as any kind of authoritative image or description. It could have simply been a way of reinforcing Mary’s sinlessness in a way the saint could best understand.

 

[Antonio_B]

Ghosty:

I wouldn’t say they should be relied upon more than anyone else’s thoughts or visions for the simple reason that they are tailored to the specific saint’s psyche for a specific purpose. Since they are not necessarily geared towards teaching, like public revelation is, they aren’t given any kind of assurance towards accuracy. We don’t know why the vision was given the way it was, so we can’t use it as any kind of authoritative image or description. It could have simply been a way of reinforcing Mary’s sinlessness in a way the saint could best understand.

Let me give you an example that might convince you to see things a bit differently. Yes, I’m trying to “change” your mind on this one. I may or may not be successful.

In 1854 Blessed Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Although we had always believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, it had not been defined officially by Rome until 1854.

Four years later, in 1858, St. Bernadette Soubirous had the privilege to see Our Lady, in an apparition at Lourdes. After several apparitions, Bernadette asked her who she was. Our Lady spoke in French saying “I am the Immaculate Conception” thus confirming from her own lips that indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, Pius IX had taught us the full truth back four years before in 1854.

Now, you are free as a Catholic NOT to believe in the apparition, but if you have any doubts as to the truthfullness of what Pius declared in 1854, it helps to know Our Lady herself confirmed with her own lips what we had believed for centuries. It also confirmed that when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, he can’t make an error in judgment because of the protection of the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit.

Antonio