Rev 12:2, did Mary suffer pains of childbirth

[DL82]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realise this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith. To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

Am I being incredulous here? Please help me understand what the Church actually teaches regarding the birth of our Lord.

 

[Nita]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realise this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

My understanding is that it is in reference to the birth of the Church – which came as a result of Our Lord’s passion and death on the cross. The water and blood from His side are often connected to the life of grace provided for His Church through the sacraments of Baptism (water) and the Eucharist (blood). Thus the Revelation passage refers to the agony (birth pangs) Mary experienced at the foot of the cross.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realise this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

You left out part of the verse. It says, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” You seem to be reading it as though God created labor pains as part of the curse. But it would be impossible to intensify something that had not already been created

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith. To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

There are two ways for something to be not natural. One way is by being unnatural. The second way is by being supernatural.

It looks like you’re assuming that since the pregnancy and birth of Christ were not natural, they must be unnatural and therefore “less than a normal human one.” I disagree. After all, Christ’s conception was supernatural, so it follows that his birth would be supernatural, not unnatural.

Am I being incredulous here? Please help me understand what the Church actually teaches regarding the birth of our Lord.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nita]

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

To my knowledge it’s not a defined dogma that Mary experienced no pain – but there is a tradition (small “t”) that Our Lord’s birth was miraculous. A passage from Isaiah is interesting in this regard.
*Is 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? *
(St. Irenaeus cited this passage as proof of Jesus “unlooked for and extraordinary birth of the Virgin.”)

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith. To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

Am I being incredulous here? Please help me understand what the Church actually teaches regarding the birth of our Lord.

Until/unless the Church would make a doctrinal declaration we just won’t know for certain. Almost all the ECF’s believed in a miraculous birth. Here are some selected quotes from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”:

Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” says: “It was she who gave miraculous birth to Christ our Lord (mirando partu edidit).”

The Fathers also, in a typical sense, refer to the virgin birth of Our Lord
**the words of the Prophet Ezechiel on the closed gates **(Ez 44:2; cf. St. Ambrose Ep. 42,6; St. Jerome, Ep. 49,21)
**the words of the Prophet Isaias on the painless birth **(Is 66:7; cf. St. irenaeus, Ep 54; St. John Damascene, De fide orth. IV 14)
and **the words of the Song of Songs on the closed garden and the sealed well **(Hl. 4,12; cf. St. Jerome, Adv. Jov. I 31, Ep. 49,21).

Dr. Ott, the author of “Fundamentals…” does not himself hold that the dogma of Mary’s virginal integrity necessarily means that her hymen remained intact.
His words: * “The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, …
However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act (“sex-act virginity”) and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed (seed-act virginity”)…"*

I don’t find it difficult at all to believe in a birth that left her hymen intact. To doubt the possibility of such an event would be to doubt the power of God. It is certainly possible; what we don’t know for sure is whether God chose to do it or not.
The conception of Jesus was miraculous and God certainly has the power to also have miraculous phenomena accompany His birth.

 

[DL82]

There are two ways for something to be not natural. One way is by being unnatural. The second way is by being supernatural.

It looks like you’re assuming that since the pregnancy and birth of Christ were not natural, they must be unnatural and therefore “less than a normal human one.” I disagree. After all, Christ’s conception was supernatural, so it follows that his birth would be supernatural, not unnatural.

Thanks, that’s helpful.

At the same time, for something to be supernatural is for it to be more than natural. For example, God is beyond reason, suprarational, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still try to understand him using reason, because to be super-rational is to be rational-and-then-some. God is never irrational. For something to be supernatural, like the conception and birth of Christ, is for it to be natural-and-then-some. Jesus Christ is fully human, Mary is fully human. Matter cannot pass through matter in the normal natural run of things. I can accept that Mary had less pain in childbirth, and that her emotional pain may be lessened by her obedience to God and by some supernatural gift of grace.

All the same, I still can’t understand (a) why it would be important to God for a physical sign of Mary’s virginity, a sign nobody would ever see or test, to remain intact (b) how human flesh could pass through human flesh to be born. That seems not super-natural but un-natural, as if Our Lord’s body was already in its’ risen glorified form, where He passed through locked doors, and not in its natural human form.

 

[Canto]

Some have argued the pains of childbirth relate to the sword that pierced Mary’s soul as Simeon prophecised. Luke ch2.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Thanks, that’s helpful.

At the same time, for something to be supernatural is for it to be more than natural. For example, God is beyond reason, suprarational, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still try to understand him using reason, because to be super-rational is to be rational-and-then-some. God is never irrational. For something to be supernatural, like the conception and birth of Christ, is for it to be natural-and-then-some. Jesus Christ is fully human, Mary is fully human. Matter cannot pass through matter in the normal natural run of things. I can accept that Mary had less pain in childbirth, and that her emotional pain may be lessened by her obedience to God and by some supernatural gift of grace.

All the same, I still can’t understand (a) why it would be important to God for a physical sign of Mary’s virginity, a sign nobody would ever see or test, to remain intact (b) how human flesh could pass through human flesh to be born. That seems not super-natural but un-natural, as if Our Lord’s body was already in its’ risen glorified form, where He passed through locked doors, and not in its natural human form.

But Jesus could walk on water before he rose from the dead. By your definition, that would be unnatural too.

As to why it’s important, stop and think what it says about Christ. These accounts, such as the virgin birth, are given to us to show that Jesus is not an ordinary man. He is both 100% human and 100% divine; therefore he is 100% natural and 100% supernatural. (You seem to want to emphasize his humanity while downplaying his divinity.)

As to how he could be born and still “pass through human flesh” I submit that nothing is impossible for God. And we don’t know that he passed through human flesh or if something just stretched (after all, the birth canal widens to accomodate the baby). Let’s remember that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. Wouldn’t she, being totally without sin, therefore have given birth in the way God intended if mankind had never sinned?

Frankly, if I were an atheist, I would find a virgin conceiving much harder to believe.

 

[distracted]

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realise this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

.

i wonder if Mary was in great emotional/spiritual pain because maybe she was given some kind of fore-knowledge of how Jesus would die (???)…

 

[MDK]

One must consider Mary’s eternal virginity when looking at the OP. Mary was a virgin before birth, during birth, and after Christ’s birth. So, one must consider that God’s greatest creation, the Immaculate Conception, the mother of the Son was not “damaged” during birth.

 

[MDK]

…As to how he could be born and still “pass through human flesh” I submit that nothing is impossible for God. And we don’t know that he passed through human flesh or if something just stretched (after all, the birth canal widens to accomodate the baby). Let’s remember that Mary is the Immaculate Conception. Wouldn’t she, being totally without sin, therefore have given birth in the way God intended if mankind had never sinned?

Later, Christ passed through to the upper room, even though the doors were locked.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Later, Christ passed through to the upper room, even though the doors were locked.

Well, I agree, but DL82 wanted to reject that argument since in that case it was Christ’s resurrected body. So I limited myself to an argument from before he rose from the dead.

 

[MDK]

Well, I agree, but DL82 wanted to reject that argument since in that case it was Christ’s resurrected body. So I limited myself to an argument from before he rose from the dead.

Christ did have a body at that time, in which He ate fish with His Apostles. Even so, He is God and at His word, the world responds. He commands the elements. As you have done, the faithful person acknowledges that for the the omnipotent God, passing through material of any kind is not really an obstacle. For those who are dead set in desire to be in opposition, any argument against a proposition will do, even if it represents a disbelief and not an impossibility.

 

[Paula_RGN]

I understand that some may question such a supernatural event as the miraculous Virgin Birth of Jesus but if you understand the Divinity of Christ then it will be easier to understand His painless and supernatural birth.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Why would her hymen being ruptured be the end of her virginity? This amounts almost to the argument that if one practices oral sex or sodomy or masturbation that one is still a virgin. This is a very legalistic approach, I believe. Also, virginity is lost due to sexual acts, so childbearing without sexual incourse would not lead to loss of virginity. I would also like to recall either St. Ambrose or St. Augustine (I’m not sure which at the moment) who spoke of a group of consecrated virgins who had been raped but whom he still considered to be virgins none the less

 

[Kay_Cee]

Christ did have a body at that time, in which He ate fish with His Apostles. Even so, He is God and at His word, the world responds. He commands the elements. As you have done, the faithful person acknowledges that for the the omnipotent God, passing through material of any kind is not really an obstacle. For those who are dead set in desire to be in opposition, any argument against a proposition will do, even if it represents a disbelief and not an impossibility.

Well, I agree, but you’re arguing with the wrong person. Your issue is with DL82.

 

[MDK]

Well, I agree, but you’re arguing with the wrong person. Your issue is with DL82.

I have no argument with you, as I see no real difference in our positions on this being valid. So, the intention was supporting you in that position. I’m not really arguing with DL82 either, but hopeful of bringing something to light for sincere consideration.

 

[Drlit]

. . . But if Jesus was “True God and True Man” mustn’t we assume that he came into the world like and man left it like a man (on the cross).

It would imply that he was some how NOT fully human if he was not born of woman as other humans are.

Just my thoughts.

KARL

 

[MDK]

. . . But if Jesus was “True God and True Man” mustn’t we assume that he came into the world like and man left it like a man (on the cross).

It would imply that he was some how NOT fully human if he was not born of woman as other humans are.

Just my thoughts.

KARL

Karl,
Thanks for posting. Recommend doing some more homework to bring the post over to Catholicism.

Things to consider include that the conception of Christ in Mary was by overshadowing by the Holy Spirit, instead which is not how humans normally are conceived… yet Christ was fully Man as well as fully God.

Would a human child born via Cesarean Section and not vaginally… be fully human? Yes, the child would be fully human.

What if God provided for Mary essentially the equivalent of a bloodless Cesarean Section delivery which left no wound either, so that she was not damaged?

 

[MDK]

Why would her hymen being ruptured be the end of her virginity? This amounts almost to the argument that if one practices oral sex or sodomy or masturbation that one is still a virgin. This is a very legalistic approach, I believe. Also, virginity is lost due to sexual acts, so childbearing without sexual incourse would not lead to loss of virginity. I would also like to recall either St. Ambrose or St. Augustine (I’m not sure which at the moment) who spoke of a group of consecrated virgins who had been raped but whom he still considered to be virgins none the less

Don’t you think the virgins raped would be considered spiritually not to have broken their vow using their freedom of will, much like we don’t mortally sin unless there is consent? Yet, considered them virgins, may not be exactly the same as still being virgins physically.

The claim of Mary’s Virginity during birth, has no relation whatsoever to the false arguments about sexual immorality relating to other claims of virginity you posted. In other words, the discussion of Mary’s virginity is not at all legalistic, but seeking the truth of our faith and about our spiritual mother, the Mother of our Lord, and understanding correctly about Christ. So, are you interested in finding the truth about this, or just the lowest bar at which Mary’s virginity can be argued?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

1. Leaving aside charity towards God, who can contemplate the Immaculate Virgin without feeling moved to fulfill that precept which Christ called peculiarly His own, namely that of loving one another as He loved us? “A great sign,” thus the Apostle St. John describes a vision divinely sent him, appears in the heavens: “A woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars upon her head” (Apoc. xii., 1). Everyone knows that this woman signified the Virgin Mary, the stainless one who brought forth our Head. The Apostle continues: “And, being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered” (Apoc. xii., 2). John therefore saw the Most Holy Mother of God already in eternal happiness, yet travailing in a mysterious childbirth. What birth was it? Surely it was the birth of us who, still in exile, are yet to be generated to the perfect charity of God, and to eternal happiness. And the birth pains show the love and desire with which the Virgin from heaven above watches over us, and strives with unwearying prayer to bring about the fulfillment of the number of the elect.

**AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM (On the Immaculate Conception)**Pope Pius X

Christ enabled Mary’s suffering to be fruitful.
Mary gave birth to all of us at the foot of the cross:
**She who gave birth to our Head, Jesus Christ, must, consequently, give birth to the entire body. **