Virgin Birth

[Neithan]

I’ve been thinking about this dogma lately, and it puzzles me.

How is it possible that Mary remained a virgin *during *the birth of Christ!? I couldn’t even imagine that! And if something isn’t even possible in the realm of fantasy, how could it be possible in reality?

The *Catholic Encyclopedia *article says:

that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits.

(emphasis mine)
What does this mean exactly? Was the infant body of Jesus “transfigured” in the womb, and thereby passed out of Mary without damaging her virginity?

Thanks for any help!

 

[kell0618]

From the Lateran Council, 649 A.D.

“If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.”

And in a general audience, Pope John Paul II explained it this way:

John Paul II, General Audience of Jan. 28, 1988: “Mary was therefore a virgin before the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin in giving birth and after the birth. That is the truth presented by the New Testament texts and which was expressed both by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553 [DS 422] which speaks of Mary as ‘ever virgin’ and by the Lateran Council in 649 [DS 503] 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.”

How could a woman give birth to a child and remain a virgin? Well, there are two answers that I can come up with.

1. 
   *]If she had no relations with a man, and that is the current definition of losing ones virginity, then she indeed would still be a virgin.
   *]Anything is possible with God. End of story. Surely if He could impregnate her through the Holy Spirit, He could deliver the Christ Child as He saw fit.
   Kelly

 

[Tomster]

I’ve been thinking about this dogma lately, and it puzzles me.

How is it possible that Mary remained a virgin *during *the birth of Christ!? I couldn’t even imagine that! And if something isn’t even possible in the realm of fantasy, how could it be possible in reality?

The *Catholic Encyclopedia *article says:

(emphasis mine)
What does this mean exactly? Was the infant body of Jesus “transfigured” in the womb, and thereby passed out of Mary without damaging her virginity?

Thanks for any help!

St. Matthew applies the prophecy of Isaias to the virginal conception: “Behold a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son.” (Matthew 1:23 & Isaias 7:14) But from the moment that the prophet added that “the virgin . . . shall bring forth a Son,” the pious faithful could have been led to see in this prophecy also, an affirmation of her virginity in childbirth.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent expresses it as follows: “The conception of the Savior is above all the laws of nature, and His birth is no less so; it is divine. And what is absolutely astounding, what surpasses every thought and every word, is that He was born of His Mother without causing the least injury to her virginity. Just as, later on, He left His tomb without breaking the seal which closed it, or just as He entered the house - the doors being shut - where His disciples were gathered, or - to take a comparison from ordinary happenings - just as the rays of the sun pass through the crystal without breaking or damaging it, so too, but in an ineffably more marvelous manner, Jesus Christ left the womb of His Mother without in the least violating her virginity. We are, therefore, perfectly right in honoring in her a perpetual virginity and a perfect integrity. This unheard-of privilegewas the work of the Holy Spirit, who assisted in the conception and in the birth of Mary’s Son in such a way that He communicated to her the fertility of the Mother while preserving in her the integrity of the Virgin.” (Part I, Chapte IV, Section II).

 

[Tomster]

I’ve been thinking about this dogma lately, and it puzzles me.

How is it possible that Mary remained a virgin *during *the birth of Christ!? I couldn’t even imagine that! And if something isn’t even possible in the realm of fantasy, how could it be possible in reality?

The *Catholic Encyclopedia *article says:

(emphasis mine)
What does this mean exactly? Was the infant body of Jesus “transfigured” in the womb, and thereby passed out of Mary without damaging her virginity?

Thanks for any help!

The reasons for the fittingness of the virginity in partu are almost the same as those for the virginity ante partum, since the former is merely the completion of the latter. On the other hand, this virginity was more in keeping with the divinity of Jesus and His infinite purity, and showed the value He attached to virginity.

In a certain sense, the virginity during childbirth demonstrates even better than the virginity before childbirth the esteem in which Jesus holds virginal purity; especially does it show the infinite delicacy of His love for His Mother, since by this miracle He preserved in her not only that which constitutes the essence of virginity but even that which constitutes its maternal perfection. For the very first Christians, this was an evident factual proof of what they had always felt more or less obscurely, namely, that Jesus wished His Mother to be as perfect in every respect as it is possible for a human creature to be, even in her body, although this perfection required an unheard of miracle. This was also an indication which they would utilize when they affirmed the incorruptibility of her body and its glorious assumption. And for all generations this virgin is a subject of admiration and joy, and an invitaton to go as far as possible, after the example of Jesus, in venerating His Mother.

 

[JimG]

While the fact of the virgin birth is revealed doctrine, the “mechanics” of it are not revealed, and consequently are only a matter of speculation. Perhaps God figured that how it was done is none of our business!

In any case, recall that after his resurrection, Jesus, in his real actual physical body which the apostles could touch and feel, was able to pass through the walls of locked rooms. Perhaps the same was true of the virgin birth.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Neithan,

If the resurrected Jesus could go through walls, I don’t see a problem with him going through flesh at His birth.

Verbum

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

This is the funniest thread I have ever read. But, since you really need an out,

"Sometimes this formation of an opening does not occur, resulting in an imperforated hymen (it lacks the more common opening).** Some females have no hymen at birth at all,** since the tissue divided completely while they were still in the womb. "

coolnurse.com/hymen.htm

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you Neithan;

If God can create the universe from nothing he can create a virgin birth.

If God can create Adam and Eve from dust he should also be able to arrange a virgin birth.

In the spirit of believing in one God the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Eric

 

[maryjk]

How is it possible that Mary remained a virgin *during *the birth of Christ!? I couldn’t even imagine that! And if something isn’t even possible in the realm of fantasy, how could it be possible in reality?
Thanks for any help!

Are we serious here?
A virgin is someone that has not had sexual intercourse. Remaining a virgin during the birth has nothing to do with being a virgin.

 

[japhy]

Can you imagine a bush blazing with fire, yet not consumed (cf. Exodus 3:1-3)? Such was the presence of Jesus Christ in the womb of Mary, and such was his issue from her womb. It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe that the Holy Spirit could fertilize an ovum in Mary, than to believe to that God could permit the newborn Jesus to pass through Mary while keeping her physical virginity intact.

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for your answers!

Tomster:

Just as, later on, He left His tomb without breaking the seal which closed it …]

This is something of an aside–but I thought the stone of the tomb had been rolled away?

Verbum:

Hi Neithan,

If the resurrected Jesus could go through walls, I don’t see a problem with him going through flesh at His birth.

Verbum

I know, I know, it’s not like I am questioning the validity of the dogma itself really (I apologise if I gave that impression), I am just wondering how this miracle occurred. The passing through walls was another amazing miracle of the same kind.

JimG:

While the fact of the virgin birth is revealed doctrine, the “mechanics” of it are not revealed, and consequently are only a matter of speculation. Perhaps God figured that how it was done is none of our business!

In any case, recall that after his resurrection, Jesus, in his real actual physical body which the apostles could touch and feel, was able to pass through the walls of locked rooms. Perhaps the same was true of the virgin birth.

I found a couple of articles in the *Summa *where Aquinas explains in fascinating (though somewhat laborious) detail the ‘mechanics’ of how such miracles might work.

Contrary to what I had thought, Aquinas asserts that it was *not *because of Christ’s glorified state that he could pass through walls, but solely because of his divine power! So not even the glorified saints will be capable of such a feat.

 

[Neithan]

maryjk:

Are we serious here?
A virgin is someone that has not had sexual intercourse. Remaining a virgin during the birth has nothing to do with being a virgin.

Sorry, I guess I should have posted this first:

Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

(from Dogmas of the Catholic Church)
Daniel Marsh:

This is the funniest thread I have ever read. But, since you really need an out,

"Sometimes this formation of an opening does not occur, resulting in an imperforated hymen (it lacks the more common opening).** Some females have no hymen at birth at all,** since the tissue divided completely while they were still in the womb. "

coolnurse.com/hymen.htm

I think maybe you don’t understand the question, but hey I’m glad you got a laugh out of it!

 

[japhy]

Contrary to what I had thought, Aquinas asserts that it was *not *because of Christ’s glorified state that he could pass through walls, but solely because of his divine power! So not even the glorified saints will be capable of such a feat.

I’ve never had subtlety explained or defined well. Does Aquinas do so?

Anyway, while Aquinas attributes Jesus’s glorified body being able to pass through the door of the room where the disciples gathered to “the Divine power” (Q75, A4), the full context of that is: “But it would be possible by the Divine power for two glorified bodies or two non-glorified bodies to be in the same place, even as a glorified body with a non-glorified body.” (ibid). Therefore, by the Divine power, our glorified bodies could be granted to pass through a non-glorified body.

But I think the point is moot, since when we are in our glorified bodies, we will be in the new Jerusalem where everything is (by its nature) glorified and there should be no need for us to transcend non-glorified matter.

 

[Spirithound]

Are we serious here?
A virgin is someone that has not had sexual intercourse. Remaining a virgin during the birth has nothing to do with being a virgin.

This is what i’ve always thought, but it appears that “virginity” is being used in another sense, to include non-corruption of the hymen…

 

[LilyM]

You’re happy to believe that the infinite and almighty God took on human personhood, changed water into wine, controlled the weather, walked on water, raised others from the dead, then died and himself rose from the dead, then ascended into heaven under his own power …

and yet you’re worried about a little thing like how Mary remained a virgin during his birth?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

While the fact of the virgin birth is revealed doctrine, the “mechanics” of it are not revealed, and consequently are only a matter of speculation. **Perhaps God figured that how it was done is none of our business! **

Indeed! Let us give the Blessed Mother some privacy, folks. I don’t think it is an important issue – not to diminish the original poster’s curiosity.

It’s sort of like the debate over how to interpret the Creation stories. Did God create the world in 144 hours, or is there some symbolism involved in the Biblical accounts? The bottom line is that God created the world, not how. Ditto for the Virgin Birth.

Peace,
Dante

 

[cryptic]

Hi,

While surfing around the 'net I noticed this thread (I know it’s old). I just wanted to share a different perspective on this thread. I do not mean any harm or try to discredit anyone’s views, but simply share a different angle…

First, think of the story as SYMBOLIC and try not to think of it literally…the Bible is very very old and has been translated, so over time, things may get twisted a bit, different pieces missing (or burnt) intentionally and unintentionally, etc. Mary’s story is not 100% complete from all the history books and History channel shows I’ve seen…You are taking a “little” piece and trying to solve a big puzzle, when in actuality, you do not have all of the facts in order to solve it. So, instead of zooming in, zoom out, and look at the BIG picture…

Think of the Virgin Mary’s birth as a SYMBOL of the power of God…which, through “God”, anything can happen.

My view on what “God” is: God exists in everything and everyone. You begin in your MIND. What you think, you attract. Your thoughts then turn into feelings, and then feelings turn into reality little by little. With this, you “create” your own reality, (parallel this just like God “created” the heavens and the earth). You must think positive and tap into that spiritual side inside yourself, to tap into the divine power. Once you do this, “anything can happen”. Therefore, “through God anything can happen.” That’s how I view things.

I hope everyone understands…it’s difficult to explain a “feeling” into words.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

 

[japhy]

I just wanted to share a different perspective on this thread. I do not mean any harm or try to discredit anyone’s views, but simply share a different angle…

cryptic, welcome to Catholic Answers.

First, think of the story as SYMBOLIC and try not to think of it literally…the Bible is very very old and has been translated, so over time, things may get twisted a bit, different pieces missing (or burnt) intentionally and unintentionally, etc.

Was this necessarily the case in the 4th and 5th centuries when these doctrinal matters were being discerned and defined? The Fathers at the early Church councils spoke Greek, and the texts they were dealing with were written in Greek: no translation issues there. They were also quite meticiulous in their wording and phrasing of their conciliar decrees.

Mary’s story is not 100% complete from all the history books and History channel shows I’ve seen…

We don’t need the Blessed Virgin Mary’s complete story, just like we don’t need our Lord Jesus Christ’s complete story – we know very little of what He said and did before His 30th year. And history books and the History channel tend to be skeptical of canonical Scripture, and prefer to lend credence to “other” gospels and writings which the Church has never accepted.

Think of the Virgin Mary’s birth as a SYMBOL of the power of God…which, through “God”, anything can happen.

Why can’t the Virgin Mary’s giving birth to Jesus be not merely a symbol but also a true sign, a reality, of God’s power? Why would the early Christians have felt the need to make up stories about Jesus’s birth to get across how powerful God is (or can be)?

My view on what “God” is: God exists in everything and everyone.

To the same degree and in the same way? Should I worship you as God? Or this computer? Or a totem?

You begin in your MIND.

That’s quite a paradox: our minds only exist once WE exist. Catholics would say that we begin in God’s “mind”.

Your thoughts then turn into feelings, and then feelings turn into reality little by little. With this, you “create” your own reality, (parallel this just like God “created” the heavens and the earth).

What “realities” have you created that aren’t universally real?

You must think positive and tap into that spiritual side inside yourself, to tap into the divine power. Once you do this, “anything can happen”. Therefore, “through God anything can happen.”

But by “re-engineering” God to be some “reality” which exists in everyone and everything, it ends up not being God Who can do all things, but us, if we just “try hard enough” or “think that we can do it”. That’s a very self-centered approach, I think.

Christianity is not about “tapping into” yourself: it is about humility and abandonment of self to God, through Whom we receive our selves renewed. But our trust and hope and faith is still in God, not in ourselves.

 

[JimG]

Think of the Virgin Mary’s birth as a SYMBOL of the power of God…which, through “God”, anything can happen.

My view on what “God” is: God exists in everything and everyone. You begin in your MIND. What you think, you attract. Your thoughts then turn into feelings, and then feelings turn into reality little by little. With this, you “create” your own reality, (parallel this just like God “created” the heavens and the earth). You must think positive and tap into that spiritual side inside yourself, to tap into the divine power. Once you do this, “anything can happen”. Therefore, “through God anything can happen.” That’s how I view things.

I hope everyone understands…it’s difficult to explain a “feeling” into words.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

Neither the virgin birth nor the resurrection have ever been understood in the history of the Church to be merely symbolic.

Thoughts turning into feelings and feelings turning into reality seems a little detached from reality to me.

 

[Neithan]

Hi,

While surfing around the 'net I noticed this thread (I know it’s old). I just wanted to share a different perspective on this thread. I do not mean any harm or try to discredit anyone’s views, but simply share a different angle…

First, think of the story as SYMBOLIC and try not to think of it literally…the Bible is very very old and has been translated, so over time, things may get twisted a bit, different pieces missing (or burnt) intentionally and unintentionally, etc. Mary’s story is not 100% complete from all the history books and History channel shows I’ve seen…You are taking a “little” piece and trying to solve a big puzzle, when in actuality, you do not have all of the facts in order to solve it. So, instead of zooming in, zoom out, and look at the BIG picture…

Think of the Virgin Mary’s birth as a SYMBOL of the power of God…which, through “God”, anything can happen.

My view on what “God” is: God exists in everything and everyone. You begin in your MIND. What you think, you attract. Your thoughts then turn into feelings, and then feelings turn into reality little by little. With this, you “create” your own reality, (parallel this just like God “created” the heavens and the earth). You must think positive and tap into that spiritual side inside yourself, to tap into the divine power. Once you do this, “anything can happen”. Therefore, “through God anything can happen.” That’s how I view things.

I hope everyone understands…it’s difficult to explain a “feeling” into words.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

Thanks for your reply, cryptic, but your interpretation is much too esoteric, and smacks of Modernism–a debunked 20th century heresy that basically tried to subjectivize the central tenets of the Faith, turning concrete historical facts into metaphysical symbols. Its echoes can still be heard in the Church amongst the scattered adherents of today’s dwindling Catholic dissidents.

Having read and thought more about this amazing dogma, I do think that the best way to understand it is something akin to the Transfiguration happening at Christ’s Birth.