The Seal of Virginity

[Faith1960]

I was reading this and would like someone to explain (without the obvious “it was a miracle” ) to me how Mary could have possibly given birth in this manner, especially in light of the fact that “…our Blessed Lord left the womb of His mother therough the natural channels…”

<<<<<< In endnote #78 Dr. Tkacz states “Legend attributes an intact hymen to the Theotokos” and then goes on to quote from Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary that the “rupture or absence (of the hymen) is not evidence of loss of virginity.” While a certain sense of delicacy, inspired by the 1960 Monitum of the Holy Office of 1960, (33) makes me hesitate a moment before taking issue with this statement, it needs to be dealt with. On this matter the late Father Juniper Carol, O.F.M. summarized quite clearly how the approach of the Fathers and the magisterium had come to be understood:

At the appropriate time, Our Blessed Lord left the womb of His Mother through the natural channels but in a miraculous way, that is, without in any manner opening any part of Mary’s body. In other words, there was no dilatation of the normal passage, no opening of the vagina, no breaking of the virginal hymen. (34) >>>>>>>

motherofallpeoples.com/2012/10/marys-miraculous-birth-of-jesus-the-catholic-churchs-perennial-tradition/

 

[Rence]

I was reading this and would like someone to explain (without the obvious “it was a miracle” ) to me how Mary could have possibly given birth in this manner, especially in light of the fact that “…our Blessed Lord left the womb of His mother therough the natural channels…”

<<<<<< In endnote #78 Dr. Tkacz states “Legend attributes an intact hymen to the Theotokos” and then goes on to quote from Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary that the “rupture or absence (of the hymen) is not evidence of loss of virginity.” While a certain sense of delicacy, inspired by the 1960 Monitum of the Holy Office of 1960, (33) makes me hesitate a moment before taking issue with this statement, it needs to be dealt with. On this matter the late Father Juniper Carol, O.F.M. summarized quite clearly how the approach of the Fathers and the magisterium had come to be understood:

At the appropriate time, Our Blessed Lord left the womb of His Mother through the natural channels but in a miraculous way, that is, without in any manner opening any part of Mary’s body. In other words, there was no dilatation of the normal passage, no opening of the vagina, no breaking of the virginal hymen. (34) >>>>>>>

motherofallpeoples.com/2012/10/marys-miraculous-birth-of-jesus-the-catholic-churchs-perennial-tradition/

I don’t understand why this matters in the first place. Whether or not the hymen is intact has nothing to do with virginity. Virginity means one has not been touched by a man. Breaking one’s hymen by doing gymnastics, by surgery, by a tampon, by an injury, or by anything other than sex, does not make someone not a virgin. It’s quite possible that Our Lady’s hymen stretched and didn’t break. God has certainly worked bigger miracles. But so what if it did? It doesn’t make her any less a virgin, since she was never touched by a man, which is what virginity is. IMOHO this is just petty. But you’ll have to be satisfied with “because it’s a miracle” or “it’s a matter of faith”, because we simply cannot know. Bu again, why on earth would it matter?

 

[Faith1960]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I don’t understand why this matters in the first place. Whether or not the hymen is intact has nothing to do with virginity. Virginity means one has not been touched by a man. Breaking one’s hymen by doing gymnastics, by surgery, by a tampon, by an injury, or by anything other than sex, does not make someone not a virgin. It’s quite possible that Our Lady’s hymen stretched and didn’t break. God has certainly worked bigger miracles. But so what if it did? It doesn’t make her any less a virgin, since she was never touched by a man, which is what virginity is. IMOHO this is just petty. But you’ll have to be satisfied with “because it’s a miracle” or “it’s a matter of faith”, because we simply cannot know. Bu again, why on earth would it matter?

It matters, not because her hymen remained intact, but because supposedly her birth canal never opened to allow Jesus to pass through, and according to more I read, she supposedly didn’t birth out a placenta, or umbilical cord, either.

I don’t know if this is dogma or just opinion.

 

[Rence]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

It matters, not because her hymen remained intact, but because supposedly her birth canal never opened to allow Jesus to pass through, and according to more I read, she supposedly didn’t birth out a placenta, or umbilical cord, either.

But why does it matter, aside from the obvious “it was a miracle”? And is that a dogmatic teaching? I thought the only dogma regarding Mary was the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Faith1960]

But why does it matter, aside from the obvious “it was a miracle”? And is that a dogmatic teaching? I thought the only dogma regarding Mary was the Immaculate Conception?

Because I don’t know how He could’ve come into this world, in this manner. Especially since Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. He did t just appear one day out of nowhere, He was carried in Mary’s womb, like all babies are, but then He didn’t have an umbilical cord or placenta?
I don’t know if this dogma or not.

 

[Rence]

Because I don’t know how He could’ve come into this world, in this manner. Especially since Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. He did t just appear one day out of nowhere, He was carried in Mary’s womb, like all babies are, but then He didn’t have an umbilical cord or placenta?
I don’t know if this dogma or not.

Well…it kinda doesn’t make sense to me to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, be carried in Mary’s womb for nine months and then just float out of the uterus free-falling. Why bother being “born” at all? Why not just free fall from the sky to Mary’s arms? This is all news to me. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I went to Catholic grammar school, Catholic high school, Catholic college and Catholic university, and I’ve never heard of all this that that article said. To me, and this is only me, this stangeness is the result of men of the early centuries being squicked by the birthing process, as if it was something dirty or lowly - rather than the incredibly efficient, not to mention beautiful process that it is. Look at how the article describes it, calling the birthing process as “corruption” to the organs and passage. It’s as if they had no clue what the purpose of these things (the placenta, etc) had. Did Mary not nourish Jesus while he was in her womb?

Anyway, I honestly couldn’t care less whether or not Jesus came out without Mary experiencing all the physiological changes that birth bring (except for pain, even the Bible says she didn’t experience birthing pains, which makes complete sense because she is the Immaculate Conception, she never had original sin so she wouldn’t experience birth pain). If Jesus wanted to float on out miracle-wise, that’s His prerogative, He’s God anyway. But I don’t think it’s a requirement of the faithful to share certain popes opinion on the matter. It’s not like they’ve never been wrong before. Rather, certain teachings have changed over the years due to better understanding and more information. We all know the core teachings, the dogma, regarding faith and morals never changes.

 

[RPRPsych]

Because I don’t know how He could’ve come into this world, in this manner. Especially since Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. He did t just appear one day out of nowhere, He was carried in Mary’s womb, like all babies are, but then He didn’t have an umbilical cord or placenta?
I don’t know if this dogma or not.

Older tradition has viewed this as a sort of miraculous “translation”, very similar to the event in John 20 where Christ appears through a solid wall and joins His Apostles.

Archbishop Muller has also written about this, pointing out that trying to understand it in purely human or physiological terms will probably get us nowhere.

The perpetual virginity of Mary - before, during and after birth - is an ancient teaching of the Church, and has been held as dogma as early as the 2nd-3rd century, as far as I call recall. However, it should not lead us into prurient discussions of sexual anatomy and physiology. A miracle is a miracle, whether it is the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth or the perpetual virginity of Mary. I personally like the John 20 explanation, because John’s Gospel and Revelation are full of Marian material. Isaiah 66: 7 is another passage that has been used allegorically to make sense of this miracle.

 

[Latinitas]

But why does it matter, aside from the obvious “it was a miracle”? And is that a dogmatic teaching? I thought the only dogma regarding Mary was the Immaculate Conception?

The dogmata concerning Mary are the:

• Immaculate Conception (she was conceived free from original sin)
• Perpetual Virginity (she was a virgin her whole life)
• Divine Maternity (she was the Mother of God)
• Assumption (she was assumed into heaven after the end of her life)

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Jon_S_1]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

It matters, not because her hymen remained intact, but because supposedly her birth canal never opened to allow Jesus to pass through, and according to more I read, she supposedly didn’t birth out a placenta, or umbilical cord, either.

I don’t know if this is dogma or just opinion.

This is not dogma, it is pious tradition (legend)

I have heard that Christ may have passed through as he passed through doors and other things after his resurrection.

But frankly it seems that he was born as every other child is born in a bloody mess in a stable. If God had wanted him to just appear then he would have had no need for Mary.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well…it kinda doesn’t make sense to me to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, be carried in Mary’s womb for nine months and then just float out of the uterus free-falling. Why bother being “born” at all? Why not just free fall from the sky to Mary’s arms? This is all news to me. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I went to Catholic grammar school, Catholic high school, Catholic college and Catholic university, and I’ve never heard of all this that that article said. To me, and this is only me, this stangeness is the result of men of the early centuries being squicked by the birthing process, as if it was something dirty or lowly - rather than the incredibly efficient, not to mention beautiful process that it is. Look at how the article describes it, calling the birthing process as “corruption” to the organs and passage. It’s as if they had no clue what the purpose of these things (the placenta, etc) had. Did Mary not nourish Jesus while he was in her womb?

Anyway, I honestly couldn’t care less whether or not Jesus came out without Mary experiencing all the physiological changes that birth bring (except for pain, even the Bible says she didn’t experience birthing pains, which makes complete sense because she is the Immaculate Conception, she never had original sin so she wouldn’t experience birth pain). If Jesus wanted to float on out miracle-wise, that’s His prerogative, He’s God anyway. But I don’t think it’s a requirement of the faithful to share certain popes opinion on the matter. It’s not like they’ve never been wrong before. Rather, certain teachings have changed over the years due to better understanding and more information. We all know the core teachings, the dogma, regarding faith and morals never changes.

Where in the Bible does it say Mary did not experience birth pains?

Why would birth pains mean she had original sin? The curse was that pains would be magnified in child birth, not that pain would be created in childbirth. Did mary feel pain if she stubbed her toe? If she broke her arm? Of course, and so I am sure she felt pain with birth and exhaustion with her pregnancy (which is in the Bible I think) etc…

All it proves is just how strong and saintly she was.

 

[Petaro]

How are we to know? And without being a prude, if this was raised in conversation, out of respect for My Lady, I would move it on to the loss of the Malaysian airliner!
We know all we need to know about the miraculous birth of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of His Blessed Mother.

 

[Cathoholic]

Faith1960. You asked:

I was reading this and would like someone to explain (without the obvious “it was a miracle” ) to me how Mary could have possibly given birth in this manner, especially in light of the fact that “…our Blessed Lord left the womb of His mother therough the natural channels…”

Somebody else might ask:

I was reading this and would like someone to explain (without the obvious "it was a miracle”) to me how Jesus could have possibly come forth from the Tomb, especially in light of the fact that “…our Blessed Lord entered the tomb through natural channels…”

Sometimes the analogy of Jesus miraculous birth and miraculous Resurrection are helpful and summarized this way: “Jesus came forth from the womb, much the same as Jesus came forth from the tomb . . . miraculously.”

The late Pope John Paul II the Great put it this way . . .

POPE JOHN PAUL II "It is a well-known fact that some of the Church Fathers set us a significant parallel between the begetting of Christ ex intacta virgine from the inviolate Virgin] and his resurrection ex intacto sepulcro from the sealed tomb .
— Pope John Paul II, June 10, 1992, during a talk in Capua, Italy

Nobody is going to be able to tell you details of any of this without an eventual, “it was a miracle.”

But perhaps I can give you some REASONS why it is appropriate to believe in the Virgin Birth.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Perpetual Virginity includes three aspects.

• The Virginal Conception
• The in partu inviolability of Mary when delivering Jesus (the actual Virginal Birth)
• Mary’s subsequent Virginity

We will just focus on the first two here as your question really only concerns the second aspect–the Blessed Virgin Mary’s in partu inviolability.

The fact that Mary is a Virgin in conceiving Jesus and Mary is also explicitly described as a Virgin even in bearing Jesus can be seen in prophecy from Isaiah 7:14.

That’s part of what Isaiah had said concerning the great “sign”.

ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) 4 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin (almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Parenthesis of “almah” above from me. Sometimes translated in a minimalistic sense as merely “young woman” (which would not be a great sign).

So we see . . .

• The Virgin conceives this Son.
• The Virgin bears this Son. (She remains a virgin even in the act of bearing Her Son)

St. Matthew sees the birth of Jesus as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

MATTHEW 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

• The Virgin conceives this Son.
• The Virgin bears this Son.

The Angel Gabriel also hearkens back to Isaiah 7 with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

LUKE 1:26-28, 31 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” . . . . 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

The Angel of the Lord also seems to hearken back to Isaiah 7 with the Shepherds too.

LUKE 2:9a, 12 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, . . . . 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."

Not much of a “sign” . . . unless . . . . you accept this babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger in the context of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.

The Woman of Revelation has different layers of meaning (Old Covenant Israel, The New Covenant Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary).

REVELATION 12:1a And a great sign appeared in heaven . . . .

At this point you are asking yourself WHAT this “great sign” could be. But it would be more appropriate to ask yourself WHO this “great sign” could be.

And fortunately we are told in the second half of the verse.

REVELATION 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars

And leading up to Revelation 12:1 we are told St. John saw “the Ark” (which was described in the next verse as “the woman”). See this and this and this from Steve Ray.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Faith1960. You asked:

Somebody else might ask:

Sometimes the analogy of Jesus miraculous birth and miraculous Resurrection are helpful and summarized this way: “Jesus came forth from the womb, much the same as Jesus came forth from the tomb . . . miraculously.”

The late Pope John Paul II the Great put it this way . . .

POPE JOHN PAUL II "It is a well-known fact that some of the Church Fathers set us a significant parallel between the begetting of Christ ex intacta virgine from the inviolate Virgin] and his resurrection ex intacto sepulcro from the sealed tomb .
— Pope John Paul II, June 10, 1992, during a talk in Capua, Italy

Nobody is going to be able to tell you details of any of this without an eventual, “it was a miracle.”

But perhaps I can give you some REASONS why it is appropriate to believe in the Virgin Birth.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Perpetual Virginity includes three aspects.

• The Virginal Conception
• The in partu inviolability of Mary when delivering Jesus (the actual Virginal Birth)
• Mary’s subsequent Virginity

We will just focus on the first two here as your question really only concerns the second aspect–the Blessed Virgin Mary’s in partu inviolability.

The fact that Mary is a Virgin in conceiving Jesus and Mary is also explicitly described as a Virgin even in bearing Jesus can be seen in prophecy from Isaiah 7:14.

That’s part of what Isaiah had said concerning the great “sign”.

ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) 4 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin (almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Parenthesis of “almah” above from me. Sometimes translated in a minimalistic sense as merely “young woman” (which would not be a great sign).

So we see . . .

• The Virgin conceives this Son.
• The Virgin bears this Son. (She remains a virgin even in the act of bearing Her Son)

St. Matthew sees the birth of Jesus as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

MATTHEW 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

• The Virgin conceives this Son.
• The Virgin bears this Son.

The Angel Gabriel also hearkens back to Isaiah 7 with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

LUKE 1:26-28, 31 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” . . . . 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

The Angel of the Lord also seems to hearken back to Isaiah 7 with the Shepherds too.

LUKE 2:9a, 12 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, . . . . 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."

Not much of a “sign” . . . unless . . . . you accept this babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger in the context of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.

The Woman of Revelation has different layers of meaning (Old Covenant Israel, The New Covenant Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary).

REVELATION 12:1a And a great sign appeared in heaven . . . .

At this point you are asking yourself WHAT this “great sign” could be. But it would be more appropriate to ask yourself WHO this “great sign” could be.

And fortunately we are told in the second half of the verse.

REVELATION 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars

And leading up to Revelation 12:1 we are told St. John saw “the Ark” (which was described in the next verse as “the woman”). See this and this and this from Steve Ray.

You make a strange and false comparison with your “and bears” comparison.

Bearing a child has nothing to do with virginity per se. A virgin is someone who never had sex with a man. Not someone who never had a child move out the birth canal.

So one can be a virgin and bear a son out the birth canal if conception occurred without intercourse.

If Jesus performed miracles as an in utero infant (yes he is God and could) but it seems odd and absent the biblical narrative to say Jesus did such things.

His first miracle was at the wedding in canaa not in flying from the womb and floating into Mary’s arms.

This is nothing but strange run away piety

 

[Cathoholic]

Jon S

You said:

His first miracle was at the wedding in canaa not in flying from the womb and floating into Mary’s arms.

Are you denying Jesus was conceived miraculously too?

 

[RPRPsych]

How are we to know? And without being a prude, if this was raised in conversation, out of respect for My Lady, I would move it on to the loss of the Malaysian airliner!
We know all we need to know about the miraculous birth of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of His Blessed Mother.

I agree. We have Tradition, Church dogma, and allegories based on John 20, Ezekiel 44, Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 66. It’s not our place to pry further. The Protoevangelium of James contains an important cautionary tale about those who would do so.

 

[Cathoholic]

CCC 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”.156

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH I give glory to Jesus Christ, the God who has given you wisdom. For I have perceived that you are firmly settled in unwavering faith, being nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, fully convinced as touching our Lord that he is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, and Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, . . . .
— St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter To The Smyrneans

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “And from the prince of this world were hidden Mary’s virginity and her child-bearing, in like manner also the death of the Lord.”
— St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter To The Ephesians

The Blessed Virgin’s childbearing would not be “hidden from this world” if She had a mere natural childbirth.

CCC 498b . . . . The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the “connection of these mysteries with one another” in the totality of Christ’s mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: “Mary’s virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord’s death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God’s silence.”

Listen to St. Irenaeus back in the late 100’s A.D. almost certainly referring to Mary’s in partu inviolability!

**
ST IRENAEUS** Immanuel, born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, (He nevertheless) is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared.
St. Irenaeus. Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 33 (180 A.D.)

ST. ATHANASIUS Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His essence, deny also that He took true human flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary. In neither case would it have been profitable to us men: if the Word were not by nature true Son of God, or if the flesh which He assumed were not true flesh.
— From St. Athanasius. Discourses Against The Arians (358-362 A.D.)

**
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA** “[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing”
— St. Cyril of Alexandria Against Those Who Do Not Wish to
Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God A.D. 430].

POPE SAINT LEO THE GREAT “His (Christ’s) origin is different, but his (human) nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained”
—Pope St. Leo I (also called Leo the Great)
Died in 461 A.D. (Sermons 22:2A.D. 450]).

**
POPE SAINT LEO THE GREAT** “She (Mary) brought Him forth without the loss of virginity, even as she conceived him without its loss…(Jesus Christ was) born from the Virgin’s womb because it was a miraculous birth.”
—Pope Leo the Great (Died in 461 A.D.)

St. Augustine (writing approximately in 400 A.D.) wonders: Why all the incredulity?

**
ST AUGUSTINE** But perhaps it is the unprecedented birth of a body from a virgin that staggers you? But, so far from this being a difficulty, it ought rather to assist you to receive our religion, that a miraculous person was born miraculously.
—St. Augustine City of God Book V, Chapter 29 On the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Which The Platonists In Their Impiety Refuse To Acknowledge

ST. AUGUSTINE “It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth,** a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?**”
— St. Augustine Sermons 186:1A.D. 411].

St. Augustine tells us about the Antidicomarite heretics. Thye were the heretics who denied the Blessed Virgin Mary’s PERPETUAL Virginity.

ST. AUGUSTINE “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
— St. Augustine Heresies 56A.D. 428]).

 

[Cathoholic]

The Closed Gate Prophesy of Ezekiel . . . .

**EZEKIEL 44:1-3 ** 1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. 3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.”

ST. BASIL THE GREAT The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word “first-born” means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word “till” signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book IV Chap 14

ST. BASIL THE GREAT For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence, but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man’s compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh. . . .
An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 2

ST. EPIPHANIUS “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy **ever-virgin **Mary by the Holy Spirit”
— St. Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 120A.D. 374].

ST. ATHANASIUS And this was the wonderful thing that He was at once walking as man, and as the Word was quickening all things, and as the Son was dwelling with His Father. So that not even when the Virgin bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by being in the body was His glory] dulled: but, on the contrary, He sanctified the body also. 6. For not even by being in the universe does He share in its nature, but all things, on the contrary, are quickened and sustained by Him.
— St. Athanasius. On The Incarnation Of The Word Of God. Second Book, Section 17

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II Can. 2. If anyone does not confess . . . . of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and was born of her, let such a one be anathema.

**
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II ** If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, . . . . and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man, . . . . . or supports those who are bold enough to defend it or its heresies in the name of the holy fathers of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and persists in these errors until his death: let him be anathema.

**
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II** Additionally, we anathematize the heretical letter which Ibas is alleged to have written to Mari the Persian. This letter denies that God the Word was made incarnate of the ever virgin Mary, the holy mother of God, and that he was made man.

LATERAN COUNCIL If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.
— The Lateran Council in 649 A.D.

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still a virgin, in like manner also, He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed … For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in any way."
— St. John the Damascene (approx. 676-754 A.D.) De Fide Orthodoxa

ST THOMAS AQUINAS We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.
— St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. Third Part. Article 3, Question 28.

 

[Cathoholic]

ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to other women? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin’s is one from heaven. The one is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Heavenly One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly man. The Virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin."
— St. Peter Chrysologus (380 – 450 A.D.) Sermons

**
SAINT SISTER FAUSTINA MARY KOWALSKA** “To give worthy praise to the Lord’s mercy, we unite ourselves with Your Immaculate Mother, for then our hymn will be more pleasing to You, because She is chosen from among men and angels. **Through Her, as through a pure crystal, Your mercy was passed on to us. **Through Her, man became pleasing to God; Through Her, streams of grace flowed down upon us.”
—St. Faustina (1905-1938) from Diary; “Divine Mercy In My Soul” section 1746

**THE CONFITEOR **
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
— From The Latin Rite of the Catholic Mass (English Translation)

(CURRENT) CATHOLIC LITURGY In your divine wisdom you planned the redemption of the human race and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and 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 your Church.

Eastern Liturgy also currently states the same teachings. Here are two examples:

Troparion of the Dormition, Tone 1 In thy birth-giving, O Theotokos, thou didst keep and preserve virginity; and in thy falling-asleep thou hast not forsaken the world; for thou wast translated into life, being the Mother of Life. Wherefore, by thine intercessions, deliver our souls from death.

Kontakion of the Dormition, Tone 2 Verily, the Theotokos, who is ever watchful in intercessions, who is never rejected, neither tomb nor death could control. But being the Mother of Life, He Who dwelt in her ever-Virgin womb did translate her to life.

In a General Audience of Jan 28, 1987, Pope John Paul II . . . (stated):

POPE JOHN PAUL II “Mary was therefore a virgin before the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin in giving birth and after the birth. This is the truth presented by the New Testament texts, and which was expressed both by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553, which speaks of Mary as ‘ever virgin’, and also by the Lateran Council in 649, which teaches that 'the mother of God…Mary…conceived her Son] through the power of the Holy Spirit without human intervention, and in giving birth to him, her virginity remained incorrupted, and even after the birth her virginity remained intact.”

What “New Testament texts” was Pope John Paul alluding to?

Almost certainly he was referencing Matthew chap. 1 and Luke chap. 1.

MATTHEW 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

LUKE 1:31 31 And behold, you (“the Virgin”) will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

The virgin conceives the son . . . .the virgin bears the son (and retains her virginity even in doing so . . . which means . . . a miraculous birth). That’s why the Church Fathers can say Jesus came from the womb the same way He came from the tomb . . . . miraculously.

 

[Cathoholic]

Excerpt from our local men’s Bible study group. . . .

Why Is In-Partu Inviolability Fitting Concerning Mary?

This question is appropriate, but it is asking the wrong first question. The first question here should be “Why is this doctrine fitting concerning Jesus?”

Recall back in Genesis after Adam and Eve’s original sin, as a consequence to that sin, there were curses, and graces or blessings.

Some of the graces and blessings included the promises of the Messiah and the defeat of the serpent.

And among the curses pronounced were the curses, which included pain in childbearing.

GENESIS 3:14-16 14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Jesus would be exempt from the curses except the ones He took upon Himself. But Jesus did not come into this world to curse mankind.

People’s rejection of Him, may bring curses upon themselves, but this was not directly from Jesus bringing curses to the world.

And of course Mary was not cursed. Rather Mary is described explicitly as “Blessed among women” (Luke 1:42).

So if Eve was not cursed before she and Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, and Mary is blessed among even Eve (among women), then it stands to reason Mary is not cursed but rather “full of grace” as the archangel Gabriel explicitly states (Luke 1:28).

Also consider Jesus did not come to condemn the world (John 3:17). Jesus did not come to break the bruised reed either.

ISAIAH 42:1-3 1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations. 2 He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; 3 a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.

“A bruised reed he will not break.” If this can be applied to Jesus and His creation of even a mere reed, how much more can you apply this to His mother?

Objection: This language is metaphor for Jesus being meek and not hurting an already fallen bruised human race, not grass remaining unbroken when He walks upon it.

Answer: This may be so, but the metaphor would apply in reality concerning the curse of women in Genesis. That’s WHY a virgin can (miraculously) bear a child.

In the objector’s way of thinking: JESUS DOES DO DAMAGE to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

If Eve had not sinned her kids would not have done damage to her, but Jesus IS going to do that to His mother—The Blessed Virgin Mary??

No! This would not be fitting for Jesus or Mary.

This is yet another problem that arises directed against Jesus from denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

False Conclusion Drawn About Jesus From Denial Of Mary As Ever Virgin

• Eve’s children don’t hurt her (if no curse) (which is true)
• Jesus DOES hurt Mary’s biologic integrity (which is false)

This is yet another example of why we keep reminding the reader that all Marian doctrines have Christologic implications.

All of these things teach us about Jesus too–not just about the Blessed Virgin.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S

You said:

Are you denying Jesus was conceived miraculously too?

No of course not…but that was an act of God the Holy Spirit yes?

Of course Jesus as God is mysteriously part of it as well but his first public miracle was Canaa. He wasn’t flying around Nazareth or glowing at night or turning trees into tables for Joseph.

He didn’t come out and land in Mary’s arms talking and preaching the beatitudes. He came out crying and Mary had to nurse him and care for him as any helpless child would need caring.