Jon S. You said,
Genesis 3. That the pain would be magnified not created.
As I said, I am not using Genesis 3 to DEFEND the Blessed Virgin’s in partu inviolability (I use other quotes to do that). I merely used it as a “how much more fitting” argument. This is an
a fortiori argument, not a proof.
The Church gives a better insight than I can. Here it is . . .
ROMAN CATECHISM The Virgin Mother we may also compare to Eve, making the second Eve, that is, Mary, correspond to the first, as we have already shown that the second Adam, that is, Christ, corresponds to the first Adam. . . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.
You are making a big deal about HOW the birth of Jesus occurred (in a clinical sense).
Nobody here is saying HOW it occurred.
I am only saying HOW it DIDN’T OCCUR. Jesus birth DIDN’T OCCUR the same way as everyone else’s birth. OK? That is part of WHY it is a “great sign”.
We don’t get the “details” of such sublime things.
We don’t get the “details” on many things. The actual Incarnation event we don’t get details on except “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. We don’t get the details on HOW Jesus Resurrected. We don’t get the details on HOW Jesus went through walls or how when WE have Resurrected bodies, we will.
But we DO KNOW that whatever the “details” are (which we are not privy to and might NEVER be privy—
ever) the Blessed Virgin Mary miraculously REMAINED A VIRGIN IN CHILDBIRTH.
That’s the point.
POPE PAUL VI (Vatican website
here) “Therefore, the life of Joseph’s pure spouse, who
remained a virgin “
during childbirth and after childbirth” - as the Catholic Church has always believed and professed (31) and as was fitting for her who was raised to the incomparable dignity of divine motherhood(32)" — Pope Paul VI Apostolic Exhortation Signum Magnum. 1967
POPE PAUL VI “14. We believe that Mary is the Mother, who remained ever a Virgin, of the Incarnate Word, our God and Savior Jesus Christ,(13) and that by reason of this singular election, she was, in consideration of the merits of her Son, redeemed in a more eminent manner,(14) preserved from all stain of original sin(15) and filled with the gift of grace more than all other creatures.(16)”—Credo of the People of God. 1968
here
Let’s go back to the Roman Catechism (or “The Catechism of the Council of Trent”)
ROMAN CATECHISM In The Incarnation
Some Things Were Natural, Others Supernatural
In this mystery we perceive that some things were done which transcend the order of nature, some by the power of nature. Thus, in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of His Virgin Mother we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies, that they should be formed from the blood of the mother.
Objection: That Roman Catechism quote concerns the Incarnation, NOT the Virginal Birth!
Answer: Yep. Now let’s go to the portion just a couple of paragraphs or so later and see what the Roman Catechism says about Christ’s birth and how it compares to the Conception of Jesus at the time of the Incarnation and remember “Some Things Were Natural, Others Supernatural” (bold and ul will be mine) . . .
**
ROMAN CATECHISM **
The Nativity Of Christ Transcends The Order Of Nature
But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.
Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother
without any diminution of her maternal virginity,** just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity.** This immaculate and
perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the
Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while
preserving inviolate her
perpetual virginity.
Jon S. You said:
My issue with the light beam theory is it takes much away from both Jesus’ humanity, which is essential to our faith as well as Takes away from Mary’s roll as mother.
Earlier in the thread, I gave you a direct quote of Pope John Paul II who HIMSELF was quoting the early Church. Now I am adding a direct quote from the Roman Catechism as well. The “beam of light” isn’t meant to be a physics treatise but rather telling us something is occurring above nature here.
This is not my mere opinion Jon S. I am just enunciating the teachings of the Church.
Jimmy Akin knows of the impartu inviolability of Mary and he is not denying this doctrine. All Jimmy is saying is we don’t know the DETAILS of HOW this supernatural event occurred. I agree. We don’t know HOW.
