Question about the Nativity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
I’m trying to figure out something about the Birth of Our Lord… I read in Mystical City of God and from revelations that when Our Blessed Mother gave birth to Our Lord, she didn’t suffer any pain and she remained a virgin, and that her body was somehow spiritualized, and Our Lord was born sort of like how light shines through crystal. I think that’s really beautiful and it makes sense to me, and personally this is what I believe… my question is, is it true that the Church doesn’t have a dogma about this, - and if it doesn’t, are we allowed to believe in this way, yes? From what I read, it seems like the Church teaches that Our Lady remained a virgin and apart from that, it doesn’t really go into more details. However, in the writings of the mystics, they do go into the details because they saw it in their visions. I mean there’s still much that’s mysterious… but they did say that Our Lady didn’t suffer pain, and that Our Lord was born in a mysterious way that kept Mother Mary’s virginity intact - the whole ‘light’ analogy seems to make sense, and it also makes it miraculous, yet he was still truly born in terms of being in Mother Mary’s womb at one minute, and then not. The writings also say that Mother Mary was kneeling and praying at this time and that she was enveloped by a great light.

Another question I had is that in every movie I’ve seen or heard of about the Nativity, they always show the Blessed Mother giving birth to Our Lord in the same way that it happens to everyone else - and sometimes they also show her as if she’s in pain… even if the Church doesn’t have a doctrine about this (does it??), I still don’t like when movies do this because it doesn’t fit with the visions of the Catholic mystics (so far I’ve just read about 2). Is there a movie that shows the Nativity according to these visions?

thanks 🙂
 
It is fine to believe what you described. We don’t have to know details. We do need to agree that she is ever-virgin.

We believe in the Resurrection, and that Jesus appeared in the upper room even though the doors were locked. I have no problem believing that Jesus passed through Mary’s body as light through glass.

I did see “The Nativity Story” and Our Lady was depicted as having much pain as in a natural birth.

Although the whole movie was pleasant and like a pretty Christmas card it did not have the depth and beauty as it could have had.
 
Well Mary’s perpetual virginity is maintained by the Church, but virginity has to do with being sexual with another person. With modern technology like IVF you can have a baby and still technically be a virgin. So Mary giving birth to Jesus would not change the fact that she was a virgin.

The Church teaches that Jesus came down to be with us and experience everything we experience, so I would be skeptical with the idea that Jesus wasn’t born like everyone else. However, when my older sister was born (she was the first us), my mom said it was an easy delivery. My sister came out so easy my mom thought to herself, “That’s it?” She came out in like one push, so giving birth is not always so painful. Of course my older brother and I weren’t so easy. 😃
 
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0168.html
The perpetual virginity of Mary, as stated in the reader’s comments, has traditionally been defended and examined in three parts: Mary’s conception of Christ (virginitas ante partum); her giving birth to Christ (virginitas in partu); and her remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ ( virginitas post partum). This formulation was used by many of the early Church Fathers — St. Augustine, St. Peter Chrysologus, Pope St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Gregory Nyssa.
Please note that the Church never has authoritatively ruled on the interpretation or specifics of virginitas in partu.
 
Well Mary’s perpetual virginity is maintained by the Church, but virginity has to do with being sexual with another person. With modern technology like IVF you can have a baby and still technically be a virgin. So Mary giving birth to Jesus would not change the fact that she was a virgin.

The Church teaches that Jesus came down to be with us and experience everything we experience, so I would be skeptical with the idea that Jesus wasn’t born like everyone else. However, when my older sister was born (she was the first us), my mom said it was an easy delivery. My sister came out so easy my mom thought to herself, “That’s it?” She came out in like one push, so giving birth is not always so painful. Of course my older brother and I weren’t so easy. 😃
I agree with this…Look up any definition of “Virgin” and it will say - never had sexual intercourse - or something very similar. Mary could have delivered in the normal manner and she would still have remained a virgin.

Peace
James
 
I’m trying to figure out something about the Birth of Our Lord… I read in Mystical City of God and from revelations that when Our Blessed Mother gave birth to Our Lord, she didn’t suffer any pain and she remained a virgin, and that her body was somehow spiritualized, and Our Lord was born sort of like how light shines through crystal. I think that’s really beautiful and it makes sense to me, and personally this is what I believe… my question is, is it true that the Church doesn’t have a dogma about this, - and if it doesn’t, are we allowed to believe in this way, yes?
thanks 🙂
If you’ve read the introduction to “City of God” then you know at least 3 Popes & many Bishops have heaped praise on this work which was written for the enlightenment of the faithful. It was examined closely and found to be without error, contains nothing contrary to Scripture and is worthy of belief by the faithful. I believed every word of all 4 volumes and anyone how wants to know St. Mary needs to read it. 👍
 
I agree with this…Look up any definition of “Virgin” and it will say - never had sexual intercourse - or something very similar. Mary could have delivered in the normal manner and she would still have remained a virgin.

Peace
James
The teaching is that she is a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.

The message posted by JM3 explains the teaching. It has to do with the physical integrity of virginity.
 
As the liturgy says, “sine tactu doloris.” Church tradition is there was no pain whatsoever in the birth of Christ. Pain in childbirth is a consequence of the Fall, and thus in the birth of Christ there was no trace of that consequence of original sin.
 
Thanks for the replies. I understand that the Church hasn’t formulated the details of this, which is maybe why some here are saying that Mary could have delivered Jesus in the ‘normal’ way, though the pain part is from original sin so it makes sense to make an exception there. However, because I read those mystics, I tend to believe what they wrote personally, to me it makes sense and the light/crystal description seemed beautiful and meaningful… so I guess I was just wondering if I could believe it that way 🙂 it sounds like I can, because the Church hasn’t ever spoken against it, and the writings have been given approval.

When we say that Our Lord experienced everything that we experience, I think the exceptions to that would obviously be sin, but also the things that come from sin… for example concupiscence… and there are certain other exceptions and miracles. There are miracles relating to Our Lord’s Birth that I’ve never though of or imagined, but that make sense when we consider the holiness of God. For example…

"The infant God therefore was brought forth from the virginal chamber unencumbered by any corporeal material substance foreign to Himself. But He came forth glorious and transfigured for the divine infinite wisdom decreed and ordained that the glory of his most holy soul should in his Birth overflow and communicate itself to his body, participating in the gifts of glory in the same way as happened afterwards in his Transfiguration on mount Tabor in the presence of the Apostles (Matth. 17, 2). This miracle was not necessary in order to penetrate the virginal enclosure and to leave unimpaired the virginal integrity; for without this Transfiguration God could have brought this about by other miracles. Thus say the holy doctors, who see no other miracle in this Birth than that the Child was born without impairing the virginity of the Mother. It was the will of God that the most b1essed Virgin should look upon the body of her Son, the God-man, for this first time in a glorified state for two reasons. The one was in order that by this divine vision the most prudent Mother should conceive the highest reverence for the Majesty of Him whom She was to treat as her Son, the true God-man. Although She was already informed of his two-fold nature, the Lord nevertheless ordained that by ocular demonstration She be filled with new graces, corresponding to the greatness of her most holy Son, which was thus manifested to Her in a visible manner. The second reason was to reward by this wonder the fidelity and holiness of the divine Mother; for her most pure and chaste eyes, that had turned away from all earthly things for love of her most holy Son, were to see Him at his very Birth in this glory and thus be rejoiced and rewarded for her loyalty and beautiful love.

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 virginal chamber by divine power, issued forth to the light, and they received Him in their hands with ineffable reverence. 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. All this happened in a short space of time. In the same moment in which the holy angels thus presented the divine Child to his Mother, both Son and Mother looked upon each other, and in this look, She wounded with love the sweet Infant and was at the same time exalted and transformed in Him. From the arms of the holy princes the Prince of all the heavens spoke to his holy Mother: “Mother, become like unto Me, since on this day, for the human existence, which thou hast today given Me, I will give thee another more exalted existence in grace, assimilating thy existence as a mere creature to the likeness of Me, who am God and Man.” The most prudent Mother answered : “Trahe me post Te, curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum” (Cant. 1, 3). Raise me, elevate me, Lord, and I will run after Thee in the odor of thy ointments. In the same way many of the hidden mysteries of the Canticles were fulfilled; and other sayings which passed between the infant God and the Virgin Mother had been recorded in that book of songs, as for instance: “My Beloved to me, and I to Him, and his desire is toward me” (Cant. 2, 16). “Behold thou art beautiful, my friend, and thy eyes are dove’s eyes. Behold, my beloved, for thou art beautiful”; and many other sacramental words which to mention would unduly prolong this chapter."

Source: stjames-church.com/book4c4.html
 
Here is the quote about how Our Lord was born that I was referring to:

"The most holy Mary remained in this ecstasy and beatific vision for over an hour immediately preceding her divine delivery. At the moment when She issued from it and regained the use of her senses She felt and saw that the body of the infant God began to move in her virginal womb; how, releasing and freeing Himself from the place which in the course of nature He had occupied for nine months, He now prepared to issue forth from that sacred bridal chamber. This movement not only did not cause any pain or hardship, as happens with the other daughters of Adam and Eve in their childbirths; but filled Her with incomparable joy and delight, causing in her soul and in her virginal body such exalted and divine effects that they exceed all thoughts of men. Her body became so spiritualized with the beauty of heaven that She seemed no more a human and earthly creature. Her countenance emitted rays of light, like a sun incarnadined, and shone in indescribable earnestness and majesty, all inflamed with fervent love. She was kneeling in the manger, her eyes raised to heaven, her hands joined and folded at her breast, her soul wrapped in the Divinity and She herself was entirely deified…

At the end of the beatific rapture and vision of the Mother ever Virgin, which I have described above, was born the Sun of Justice, the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father and of Mary most pure, beautiful, refulgent and immaculate, leaving Her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making Her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty."
 
.
The beautiful passages of prose quoted above are just the thing for meditations on the Nativity of Our Lord (the third Joyful Mystery of the Rosary). When you do the First Saturday devotion, you need to meditate for 15 minutes on one or more of the mysteries. You could fulfill this by only focusing on the Nativity with these readings, above.

If you’re having any trouble with the thought of using only one of the 15 mysteries for your First Saturday meditation, please allow me to explain this idea. You may well find that 15 minutes is NEVER quite ENOUGH for this meditation!

Speaking of the 5 First Saturdays devotion, the reasons they are 5 in number are to make reparation for the blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God and as also Mother of all those who would be saved; to make reparation for blasphemies against Our Lady’s perpetual virginity; in reparation for those who scandalize children by teaching them not to foster a love for their Blessed Mother; in reparation for blasphemies against Her Sacred Images; and in reparation for outrageous denial of Her Immaculate Conception.

I find it noteworthy that all 5 of these reasons are involved with this one question about the Nativity. At first glance it would seem that only the first two would be, that is, blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God and as also Mother of all those who would be saved; and to make reparation for blasphemies against Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.

But upon reflection it turns out that reparation for those who scandalize children by teaching them not to foster a love for their Blessed Mother is intimately involved, for whenever children see a movie that depicts Our Lady in pain giving birth to Our Lord, or whenever they attend the local non-Catholic church’s Christmas play that entails this same ridiculous scene (as I have), it poisons their minds against the special love they could have for her if they could think of this Nativity the way those nice posts above explain it. How could a child not be in awe thinking about Our Lord coming through the most pure womb of His Mother like the colors of the rainbow come through a crystal prism or fine, cut glass? But they would take that away from them with thoughts of a normal childbirth that perhaps they just had seen the week before, or not.

Furthermore, blasphemies against Her Sacred Images is brought into focus because there are icons in the Eastern Churches that depict as a window into the mystical reality of eternity showing Our Lord in the Immaculate womb of Our Lady as if it were His throne, and with Him ready to emerge to claim His kingship over all creation. This mystical window becomes alive and full of deep incomprehensible mystery and amazement in the context of the descriptions above ---- whereas a moaning, crying and pained delivery (like normal childbirth most often is) turns into a blasphemy against this sacred image of the miraculous Nativity.

Finally, which is actually the FIRST of the 5 reasons Our Lord had explained to Sister Lucia, reparation for outrageous denial of Her Immaculate Conception looks at the consequences of original sin for the woman in Genesis 3, having to give birth in travail.

We are left to wonder, if it had not been for Adam’s sin, women throughout history may have been somehow immune to this travail, and the Nativity of Our Lord would not have been the exception – but perhaps even the RULE.

How can anyone who knows of anyone who has given birth cast off this thought of how maybe, just maybe, all the women of history have endured the pains of childbirth when it might not have been necessary but for the commission of one, solitary mortal sin.

Just one.

And then, think about how many doubting skeptics there have been who dare to accuse the Church of being “too harsh” when it comes to us knowing when we have committed a single mortal sin and knowing as well the potential consequence of that single sinful act.

If Our Lady is anything, She is all about communicating to us an abiding horror of sin.
.
 
.
There I go again spinning off on a tangent. I hope that doesn’t break a forum rule of some kind. I have a lot of trouble going into depth as I am so wont to do with things, while keeping my post brief, as one forum rule strongly recommends. I wouldn’t want to be known as a Jansenist, for crying out loud. After all that, I realized I didn’t adequately address the questions in the OP! 😦
I’m trying to figure out something about the Birth of Our Lord… I read in Mystical City of God and from revelations that when Our Blessed Mother gave birth to Our Lord, she didn’t suffer any pain and she remained a virgin, and that her body was somehow spiritualized, and Our Lord was born sort of like how light shines through crystal. I think that’s really beautiful and it makes sense to me, and personally this is what I believe… **my question is, is it true that the Church doesn’t have a dogma about this, - and if it doesn’t, are we allowed to believe in this way, yes? **
I don’t think there has been any dogmatic definition regarding the manner of Our Lord’s Nativity, but I think the perpetual virginity of Our Lady is de fide. It is clearly spelled out in the prayers of the Mass without any holds barred. So I guess it might have been a definition from an early Council such as was Theotokos (Mother of God) in the 4th century. But it would seem that the Immaculate Conception dogma is likewise intimately involved (see my post above, near the end), so maybe this manner of Our Lord’s Nativity is still just a breath away from pronouncement. Certainly Mary Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix is very close to the point of definition.
*From what I read, it seems like the Church teaches that Our Lady remained a virgin and apart from that, it doesn’t really go into more details. However, in the writings of the mystics, they do go into the details because they saw it in their visions. I mean there’s still much that’s mysterious… but they did say that Our Lady didn’t suffer pain, and that Our Lord was born in a mysterious way that kept Mother Mary’s virginity intact - the whole ‘light’ analogy seems to make sense, and it also makes it miraculous, yet he was still truly born in terms of being in Mother Mary’s womb at one minute, and then not. The writings also say that Mother Mary was kneeling and praying at this time and that she was enveloped by a great light.
**Another question I had is that in every movie I’ve seen or heard of about the Nativity, they always show the Blessed Mother giving birth to Our Lord in the same way that it happens to everyone else - and sometimes they also show her as if she’s in pain… ***even if the Church doesn’t have a doctrine about this (does it??), I still don’t like when movies do this because it doesn’t fit with the visions of the Catholic mystics (so far I’ve just read about 2). Is there a movie that shows the Nativity according to these visions?
I have never heard of a movie that shows what you’re thinking about and describing on this thread, as wonderful and as Catholic as it all is.

I know! It’s time for you to **MAKE **a movie that does these things! 🙂

Your dismay at seeing it depicted otherwise is entirely justified. It seems that this is just as important to so many people as for example, the words that had to be removed from the Passion of the Christ, “His blood be upon…” &c. How can some things like this be so important to some people, when they have no basis in reality? Why does the corrupted version keep seeing the light of day, anyway?

You got me! I’m not qualified to answer that. But I share with you your interest in hearing someone else answer it.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top