The Seal of Virginity

[Jon_S_1]

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. 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]. [/INDENT]

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]).

Not one of these quotes even remotely indicates that Christ was not born naturally. Even your first one CCC 449 states he was born.

As for Genesis 16,

'I will greatly MULTIPLY your (existing) pains in childbirth."

There was pain before the fall and pain is not a curse. If Adam stubbed his toe walking through the garden it hurt. This is a GOOD thing God gave us to protect us. I would think that Mary was spared of a very painful childbirth, the multiplied pain was absent.

Of course she is EVER VIRGIN as 90% of your quotes say. That is not proof a child did not decend from her birth canal. It is proof that she never had intercourse.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Not one of these quotes even remotely indicates that Christ was not born naturally. Even your first one CCC 449 states he was born.

As for Genesis 16,

'I will greatly MULTIPLY your (existing) pains in childbirth."

There was pain before the fall and pain is not a curse. If Adam stubbed his toe walking through the garden it hurt. This is a GOOD thing God gave us to protect us. I would think that Mary was spared of a very painful childbirth, the multiplied pain was absent.

Of course she is EVER VIRGIN as 90% of your quotes say. That is not proof a child did not decend from her birth canal. It is proof that she never had intercourse.

I don’t think you’re reading the CCC paragraph properly.

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

See the bolded sections. If they defined virginity as you are, then why would they emphasize this virginity was kept in tact “even in the act of giving birth”? That would have no effect on it according to your definition. But they mean much more than this.

And again, how would this birth have the possibility of “diminish[ing]”this virginity unless they mean the real physical sign of virginity?

Your objections, then, make no sense. The Tradition of the Church suggests the perpetual, real virginity of Mary in every sense. This may be hard for you to believe, but indeed we are required to believe it.

 

[Faith1960]

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.

Is pious tradition something we must believe?
As for your last sentence, ITA.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t think you’re reading the CCC paragraph properly.

See the bolded sections. If they defined virginity as you are, then why would they emphasize this virginity was kept in tact “even in the act of giving birth”? That would have no effect on it according to your definition. But they mean much more than this.

And again, how would this birth have the possibility of “diminish[ing]”this virginity unless they mean the real physical sign of virginity?

Your objections, then, make no sense. The Tradition of the Church suggests the perpetual, real virginity of Mary in every sense. This may be hard for you to believe, but indeed we are required to believe it.

I am sorry but it seems you are reading it wrong. If Jesus sanctified her virginity in birth does that not indicate a process of being made holy ?

Sanctification is a process in which we are made holy. In a similar way would not giving birth to God be the ultimate holiness a birth could obtain? I will have to look to more support but you are wrong to say it is dogma to believe Jesus was not born naturally. I would argue if he is truly human as dogma declared he must be born naturally just as he had to be carried naturally in the womb and raised from an infant. All of these speak of his humanity and his relationship to us…truly becoming one of his human creations. Being born is one of the things that makes us human. It is a part of us.

 

[seeker_of_God]

I am sorry but it seems you are reading it wrong. If Jesus sanctified her virginity in birth does that not indicate a process of being made holy ?

Sanctification is a process in which we are made holy. In a similar way would not giving birth to God be the ultimate holiness a birth could obtain? I will have to look to more support but you are wrong to say it is dogma to believe Jesus was not born naturally. I would argue if he is truly human as dogma declared he must be born naturally just as he had to be carried naturally in the womb and raised from an infant. All of these speak of his humanity and his relationship to us…truly becoming one of his human creations. Being born is one of the things that makes us human. It is a part of us.

You did not answer my question, though. If the Church adhered to your definition of virginity, then why emphasize that Mary was virgin even in the act of giving birth? There would be no reason to emphasize this fact unless the Church means the physical sign of virginity.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Another quote I found somewhere:

The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary’s virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn’t break. St. Augustine said “Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass.” Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:

• Conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost
• Generated without injury (to her virginity)
• And her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth

This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary’s womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain. If pain is the punishment of original sin and birth pangs the first punishment at the fall (Gen 3) for Eve’s disobedience. It follows that Mary as the new Eve, who was obedient to God (Lk 1:38), would not have suffered giving birth to the “new Adam”. If Eve came out of Adam’s rib with no pain while he slept, it follows that Jesus (the new Adam) came out of Mary (the new Eve) without pain.

 

[Faith1960]

Another quote I found somewhere:

<<<<< Another quote I found somewhere:

Quote:
The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary’s virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn’t break. St. Augustine said “Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass.” Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:

Conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost
Generated without injury (to her virginity)
And her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth

This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary’s womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain. If pain is the punishment of original sin and birth pangs the first punishment at the fall (Gen 3) for Eve’s disobedience. It follows that Mary as the new Eve, who was obedient to God (Lk 1:38), would not have suffered giving birth to the “new Adam”. If Eve came out of Adam’s rib with no pain while he slept, it follows that Jesus (the new Adam) came out of Mary (the new Eve) without pain. >>>>

I can accept that her hymen didn’t break, or she gave birth without pain, what I can’t understand or accept is that there was no placenta, umbilical cord etc. in light of the fact that, as quoted earlier, she gave birth through the “natural channels.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Another quote I found somewhere:

Another Quote I found somewhere (EWTN) : ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM

We can go back and forth. Contrary to what you said it is NOT dogma to believe Jesus transposed himself from the womb. In fact Luke says “she gave birth”

"The troublesome part is the middle—Mary’s virginity in giving birth to Christ. We remember that one of the sufferings inherited because of original sin is that of “child bearing pains”: The Lord God said to Eve, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” (Gen 3:16) Since Mary was free of original sin by her Immaculate Conception, she would be free of “child bearing pain.” In wrestling with this belief, the early Church Fathers then struggled to explain this virginity. The Western Fathers seemed to emphasize Mary’s physical integrity; for instance, Pope St. Leo the Great said, “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.” On the other hand, the Eastern Fathers emphasized Mary’s joy and freedom from pain in giving birth to Jesus, the Son of God. In either case, remember, the Gospel of St. Luke simply stated, “She gave birth…”

In the 1950s, Albert Mitterer cautioned against so emphasizing the physical quality of virginity that one lost sight of the goodness of Mary’s role as mother and her giving birth to Jesus. Freedom from “child bearing pain” does not necessarily entail freedom from the act of child bearing. Dr. Ludwig Ott stated, “It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.”

Father Karl Rahner, without delving into all of the anatomical details, focused on the spiritual reality of Mary’s virginity: Mary bore the Son of God. Her childbearing must have been essentially different from other women since she was free of the effects of original sin. Her virginity, childbearing and motherhood are together in union with the will of God."

 

[Jon_S_1]

Another quote I found somewhere:

I would contest to you,

1. if Jesus was to just appear then why be carried in a womb?
2. if Jesus just appeared, why as an infant? Did Mary have to nurse him or did he eat at the table from day one professing the gospel?
3. if there was no umbilical chord or placenta, how was Jesus nourished and how did he grow ? Why was he conceived and not implanted as a 9 month baby?
4. why don’t you see that your argument takes so much from Mary. It is part of motherhood to give birth. It is a beautiful thing. It is created by God. It does not affect virginity. If your daughter required a medical procedure such as a vaginal ultrasound to look for uterine cancer , would you say she was not a virgin?

Childbirth has nothing to do with virginity.

You are diminishing Mary’s role as mother to a role of caretaker

 

[Jon_S_1]

I also have no doubts that the church fathers in that time and culture where men were absent the birth process as a rule, would find it squeamish to talk about natural birth.

But the church fathers aren’t infallible, and the infallible teaching of the church is that she was always a virgin.

 

[Rence]

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.

Because the REASON why women have birth pains is due to original sin. God didn’t say that pain would be magnified with birth. He said, in pain women would birth. Yes, Mary would feel pain if she stubbed her toe or broke her arm. However, she is the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived without sin and never had original sin. Therefore there was no pain with birth. I believe one of the four Gospels, if not more, SAID she experienced no pain with birth. Ask your priest.

 

[Faith1960]

Because the REASON why women have birth pains is due to original sin. God didn’t say that pain would be magnified with birth. He said, in pain women would birth. Yes, Mary would feel pain if she stubbed her toe or broke her arm. However, she is the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived without sin and never had original sin. Therefore there was no pain with birth. I believe one of the four Gospels, if not more, SAID she experienced no pain with birth. Ask your priest.

What about the opening of the birth canal, placenta and umbilical cord?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Because the REASON why women have birth pains is due to original sin. God didn’t say that pain would be magnified with birth. He said, in pain women would birth. Yes, Mary would feel pain if she stubbed her toe or broke her arm. However, she is the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived without sin and never had original sin. Therefore there was no pain with birth. I believe one of the four Gospels, if not more, SAID she experienced no pain with birth. Ask your priest.

Well First, NONE of the gospels to my knowledge say anything about Mary being free of birth pains. The two Nativity Narratives in Matthew and Luke certainly do not.

Second, God did say that pain would be magnified in child birth not created in childbirth. Here is the text in several translations for you to chew on. The REASON there are birth pains is because it hurts to squeeze a alb baby out your vagina. The other reason is because the uterus MUST contract to push the baby out. This is how GOD HIMSELF DESIGNED IT and it is a thing of BEAUTY and a true MIRACLE.

The curse of original sin, as the verse below in numerous translations clearly says, is for the pains of Child birth to be INTENSIFIED.

Douay-Rheims Bible
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

New American Bible (from the USCCB website)
To the woman he said:
I will intensify your toil in childbearing;
in pain* you shall bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.

English Standard Version
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

New American Standard Bible
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

King James Bible
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
He said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children in anguish. Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.

International Standard Version
He told the woman, "I’ll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, “since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.”

NET Bible
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”

GOD’S WORD® Translation
He said to the woman, “I will increase your pain and your labor when you give birth to children. Yet, you will long for your husband, and he will rule you.”

Jubilee Bible 2000
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth sons; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

King James 2000 Bible
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.

American King James Version
To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.

American Standard Version
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Darby Bible Translation
To the woman he said, I will greatly increase thy travail and thy pregnancy; with pain thou shalt bear children; and to thy husband shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee.

English Revised Version
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Webster’s Bible Translation
To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

World English Bible
To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Young’s Literal Translation
Unto the woman He said, ‘Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.’

 

[Faith1960]

NONE of this is written in a creed.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jon S. You stated:

I also have no doubts that the church fathers in that time and culture where men were absent the birth process as a rule, would find it squeamish to talk about natural birth.

Really? Nobody finds talking about natural birth “squeamish” Jon S.

It is just the opposite situation. Moderns are squeamish about talking reverentially about holy sacred things in a holy sacred manner.

What the Church Fathers and the Church up until and through today see as utterly holy and deserving of appropriate delicate language, the world sees fit to make a profanation of.

You said:

But frankly it seems that he was born as every other child is born in a bloody mess in a stable.

Really? I’ll be waiting for you to back this up.

Sacred Scripture suggests every ASPECT of Mary’s virginity remains intact. Not only did our Blessed Mother not consort with a man, but anatomically the Blessed Virgin Mary remains whole as well. That’s WHY Scripture tells us a VIRGIN BEARS a Son.

The Blessed Virgin Mary REMAINS a VIRGIN even in the act of BEARING Her Son.

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 late Fr. Stanley L. Jaki in his book, The Virgin Birth and The Birth of Science talks about the phenomenon of “sordes.”

“Sordes” is the Latin word from which we get the English word “Sordid.”

Basically it this sense it means a birth in the usual clinical circumstances just like you are using it—sordes.

Fr. Jaki states historically this sordes admixed with the Virgin Birth is “incompatible” with the Fathers. After reading many of the fathers, I agree.

Fr. Jaki:

Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and quite a few other Fathers who were unanimous in seeing Mary’s virginity as being incompatible with the phenomena they call sordes. Such is their tactfully graphic shorthand for the physiology of ordinary births.

What “fathers” and Church documents are you going to appeal to, to defend your position Jon S?

The heretic Tertullian? How about the heretic Helvidius? Perhaps one of the other Antidicomarite heretics that St. Augustine warned against? How about Bishop Bonosus who was deposed by his fellow Eastern Bishops and Rome from his Bishops see for denying (among other things) the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What Church documents?

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

Jon S. Do you affirm Mary’s real and perpetual virginity . . . even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man?

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.)

Jon S. Do you affirm Jesus opened purely Mary’s pure womb?

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].

Jon S. Do you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin in conceiving Jesus and a Virgin in bearing Jesus, a Virgin perpetual?

The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. (a local Council but held under Pope St. Martin I)

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, . . . . 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. (a local Council but held under Pope St. Martin I)

Jon S. Do you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary was ever virgin and that Mary gave birth to Jesus without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth?

The Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.) referred to “Mary the ever-virgin”, and later stated:
To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.
– The Second Council of Nicaea

Jon S. Do you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary was ever virgin and that this doctrine was passed down from the fathers free from any innovations?

The birth of Jesus was a sublime event!

We are not supposed to be spiritual “peeping-toms” and see all the details.

Sometimes in an age of unhealthy curiosity we can think we need more details then we do.

Influenced by all of this, some people erroneously think we should know more details of the birth event of Jesus and Mary.

 

[Faith1960]

Jon S. You stated:

Really? Nobody finds talking about natural birth “squeamish” Jon S.

It is just the opposite situation. Moderns are squeamish about talking reverentially about holy sacred things in a holy sacred manner.

What the Church Fathers and the Church up until and through today see as utterly holy and deserving of appropriate delicate language, the world sees fit to make a profanation of.

You said:

Really? I’ll be waiting for you to back this up.

Sacred Scripture suggests every ASPECT of Mary’s virginity remains intact. Not only did our Blessed Mother not consort with a man, but anatomically the Blessed Virgin Mary remains whole as well. That’s WHY Scripture tells us a VIRGIN BEARS a Son.

The Blessed Virgin Mary REMAINS a VIRGIN even in the act of BEARING Her Son.

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 late Fr. Stanley L. Jaki in his book, The Virgin Birth and The Birth of Science talks about the phenomenon of “sordes.”

“Sordes” is the Latin word from which we get the English word “Sordid.”

Basically it this sense it means a birth in the usual clinical circumstances just like you are using it—sordes.

Fr. Jaki states historically this sordes admixed with the Virgin Birth is “incompatible” with the Fathers. After reading many of the fathers, I agree.

Fr. Jaki:

What “fathers” and Church documents are you going to appeal to, to defend your position Jon S?

The heretic Tertullian? How about the heretic Helvidius? Perhaps one of the other Antidicomarite heretics that St. Augustine warned against? How about Bishop Bonosus who was deposed by his fellow Eastern Bishops and Rome from his Bishops see for denying (among other things) the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What Church documents?

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

Jon S. Do you affirm Mary’s real and perpetual virginity . . . even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man?

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.)

Jon S. Do you affirm Jesus opened purely Mary’s pure womb?

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].

Jon S. Do you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin in conceiving Jesus and a Virgin in bearing Jesus, a Virgin perpetual?

The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. (a local Council but held under Pope St. Martin I)

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, . . . . 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. (a local Council but held under Pope St. Martin I)

Jon S. Do you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary was ever virgin and that Mary gave birth to Jesus without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth?

The Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.) referred to “Mary the ever-virgin”, and later stated:
To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.
– The Second Council of Nicaea

Jon S. Do you affirm the Blessed Virgin Mary was ever virgin and that this doctrine was passed down from the fathers free from any innovations?

The birth of Jesus was a sublime event!

We are not supposed to be spiritual “peeping-toms” and see all the details.

Sometimes in an age of unhealthy curiosity we can think we need more details then we do.

Influenced by all of this, some people erroneously think we should know more details of the birth event of Jesus and Mary.

Ok, Mary carried Jesus in her womb for 9 months feeling Him moving around nourishing him via her body and then one day a 7, 8 or 9 lbs of human baby comes out of her and there is no placenta, no umbilical cord? Where did all that go? From where did He emerge?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S. You stated:

.

Was Mary a virgin when she was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Yes

Was Mary a virgin when she gave birth to Christ in a stable ? Yes

Did she remain a Virgin her whole life? Yes

Apparently you equate childbirth with losing ones Virginity…Why?

Apparently you see something intrinsically disordered in child birth…That God could not be born naturally because it is evil or sinful to give birth to a child. (Wait till the abortionist read this!)

God created natural childbirth, and since he humbled himself to be like us…he was born of a Virgin in a stable. He had to be wrapped in clothes for warmth, he had to be stimulated to take his first breath, and he had to be nursed and raised. Mary was the MOTHER OF GOD in EVERY sense of the Word.

I frankly find it sad that people want to rob her of her role in bearing the Son of God

 

[CatholicSooner]

Interesting debate. never thought about this. Pretty easy answer is what was the definition of virgin back in biblical times?

Today, being a virgin means never having intercourse and I don’t believe has anything to do with a baby never passing through the birth canal.

 

[Faith1960]

Was Mary a virgin when she was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Yes

Was Mary a virgin when she gave birth to Christ in a stable ? Yes

Did she remain a Virgin her whole life? Yes

Apparently you equate childbirth with losing ones Virginity…Why?

Apparently you see something intrinsically disordered in child birth…That God could not be born naturally because it is evil or sinful to give birth to a child. (Wait till the abortionist read this!)

God created natural childbirth, and since he humbled himself to be like us…he was born of a Virgin in a stable. He had to be wrapped in clothes for warmth, he had to be stimulated to take his first breath, and he had to be nursed and raised. Mary was the MOTHER OF GOD in EVERY sense of the Word.

I frankly find it sad that people want to rob her of her role in bearing the Son of God

Jon, are you in RCIA? If so, can you ask your director these questions? I asked my spiritual director and she said we’ll talk about it a couple days, when I see her next.

I also asked my Bible study teacher, a theologian who used to teach at the seminary and she believes Jesus was born like we all were born.

I’m interested in what your RCIA director would have to say.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here are some verses and texts for everyone:

Luke 2:7

And she GAVE BIRTH to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Why say give birth if she did not give birth? Would it not be an important detail for Luke to say, “And in the Stable the Christ Child passed through the uterine wall and emerged from Mary’s stomach in a miracle.”

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and BEAR a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 2:1

Now after Jesus was BORN in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,

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” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Pope Leo I

“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” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

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” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

AND THE ICING ON THE CAKE

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).