"virginity even in the act of giving birth"

[GodIsGracious]

For those who are focused on bodily integrity, here are some thoughts.

In women, it is the normally constricted cervix which normally dilates in order to open the womb. As a tissue, the hymen can easily give way as the baby moves down the birth canal. Since the baby, in this journey, is not having sexual relations, the mother retains bodily integrity.

Understanding and learning of a woman’s body, I had pretty much thought of Christ’s birth in this way and in the way Mark77 posted about in post #7. We’re not taught about the actual details of the birth, just that she remained a virgin.

Further, I wonder if some people understand a woman’s body regarding the hymen. It is not a completely closed off piece of tissue. How else would a virgin menstruate? There needs to be some way for her body to expell the tissue during menstruation.

I won’t post the link, but do a search on Wikipedia for “hymen.” Warning: there is a graphic on that page. It explains a bit of the physiology of that part of the woman’s body.

And I hope I don’t get in trouble for this …

 

[Cachonga]

Nita:

Lev 12:1-8 The LORD said to Moses, "…If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. …And when the days of her purifying are completed, …she shall bring to the priest…a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle dove for a sin offering, …This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female.

I notice that this sacrifice requires a sin offering (the turtledove, or, in Mary’s case, the 2nd turtledove or pigeon). How can someone without sin make a sin offering? I’ve asked this before and have not received a biblical answer. I suggest this question should, at the very least, cause one to seriously question the dogma of the immaculate conception! (A bit off-topic, but still deals with a Marian dogma.)

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I have noted before that Catholics do not discuss with such fervor the The Virgin Conception of Jesus Christ (Annunciation)…yet for some reason the subject of a virgin birth elicits individual explanation.

For those of you that stand by the statement that Mary’s had a “normal” birth…find any Church document that refers to the Virgin birth of Jesus as “normal” -

A few posts earlier had this link to the writings of Saint Bridget…read her beautiful account of Jesus’ birth…does not sound normal to me.

Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

When you lay down a “challenge” like that, note that you are leaving the work for others.

This is always significant to me.

The various books of the Roman Catholic Bible ARE “Church documents,” because the divinely inspired Magisterium declared the Bible canon.

Okay, one of those Church documents is “the Book of Wisdom.”

The Book of Wisdom reads, in pertinent part,

5 For no king has any different origin or birth,
6 but one is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it. Wisdom 7:5-6.

There it is – a Church document stating that all kings, including Jesus the King, were born like other kings.

Would this be true if Jesus beamed-down out of Mary’s unbreached integrity?

Next Church document: The Gospel of Luke, another Church document, clearly states that Mary’s sacrifice of two turtledoves or pigeons was “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord.” Luke 2:24.

What was the purpose of that sacrificial ritual required by God?

It was to make the woman who has given birth “clean again after her flow of blood.” Leviticus 12:7.

Now, if Mary had no flow of blood, would her sacrifice have been “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord”?

Also, IF Mary did not bleed, would not Mary have been breath-takingly aware that by doing what she did, she was functionally deceiving her community into thinking that she bled?

I.e., doesn’t the in partu virginity doctrine infer that Immaculate Mary is a liar?

Thus, EVEN THE ENCYCLICAL DECLARING MARY TO HAVE BEEN IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED GENTLY, INDIRECTLY INFERS THAT MARY BLED, because if she did not, then Mary engaged in an affirmative act which she would have been accutely aware had the impact of deceiving the community, which seems to contradict Mary’s sinless state, which I very, very, very much believe in.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

There certainly has been a variety of opinions and plenty of heated emotions on this thread.

As my last entry, before the thread closes,

I hope that the OP has found comfort because of the fitting belief in Mary as Ever Virgin. And I hope that there is the realization that the minute, intimate, miraculous or non-miraculous details of the birth of Jesus have not been put into formal doctrine.

With all my heart, I hope the OP will continue to search out the truth which is found in Catholicism. Please go to Mary. She is so wonderfully human that it is easy to talk with her. Remember she is the vessel which gave us Jesus Christ, true God and true man. It is the substantial, sacramental, Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist which is the heart beat of Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

I don’t have heated emotions.

Does anyone else here have heated emotions?

 

[Nita]

I notice that this sacrifice requires a sin offering (the turtledove, or, in Mary’s case, the 2nd turtledove or pigeon). How can someone without sin make a sin offering? I’ve asked this before and have not received a biblical answer. I suggest this question should, at the very least, cause one to seriously question the dogma of the immaculate conception! (A bit off-topic, but still deals with a Marian dogma.)

Again, it’s a ritual offering; a ritual state.
There were no doubt others who conceived and bore children with no sin involved in those acts, but they also were required to fulfill the rite.

 

[Nita]

The various books of the Roman Catholic Bible ARE “Church documents,” because the divinely inspired Magisterium declared the Bible canon.

Okay, one of those Church documents is “the Book of Wisdom.”

The Book of Wisdom reads, in pertinent part,

5 For no king has any different origin or birth,
6 but one is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it. Wisdom 7:5-6.

There it is – a Church document stating that all kings, including Jesus the King, were born like other kings.

Would this be true if Jesus beamed-down out of Mary’s unbreached integrity?

Are you also then implying that the Wisdom passage denies the the miraculous conception/origin of Jesus in Mary’s womb (since that “origin” obviously occurred in a manner different from all the other kings)?

Next Church document: The Gospel of Luke, another Church document, clearly states that Mary’s sacrifice of two turtledoves or pigeons was “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord.” Luke 2:24.

What was the purpose of that sacrificial ritual required by God?

It was to make the woman who has given birth “clean again after her flow of blood.” Leviticus 12:7.

Now, if Mary had no flow of blood, would her sacrifice have been “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord”?

Also, IF Mary did not bleed, would not Mary have been breath-takingly aware that by doing what she did, she was functionally deceiving her community into thinking that she bled?

I.e., doesn’t the in partu virginity doctrine infer that Immaculate Mary is a liar?

Thus, EVEN THE ENCYCLICAL DECLARING MARY TO HAVE BEEN IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED GENTLY, INDIRECTLY INFERS THAT MARY BLED, because if she did not, then Mary engaged in an affirmative act which she would have been accutely aware had the impact of deceiving the community, which seems to contradict Mary’s sinless state, which I very, very, very much believe in.

I’ll repeat again what I said in my previous post #38. The unclean states are defined ritual states. It is conceiving and bearing a child that defines a woman as being in an unclean state after childbirth and requires sacrifices. Mary conceived and bore a Son. It is not the bleeding.

The number of days that a woman was judged as “continuing in the blood of her purifying” varied depending on the gender of the child. Please note it does not refer to physical bleeding – in other words, a woman doesn’t bleed 33 days if she gives birth to a male, and 66 days if the child is female. These are ritual conditions/states, not literal physical states.

 

[Cachonga]

jmjcondor:

For those of you that stand by the statement that Mary’s had a “normal” birth…find any Church document that refers to the Virgin birth of Jesus as “normal” -

How about the account of His birth in Matthew and Luke. Seems to me that something as miraculous as what you think His birth was like would have been recorded. Since we have no details, then it seems perfectly acceptable to believe it happened in the normal fashion. Just curious, though - given your reliance on Saint Bridget’s vision, do you think Jesus had a belly button (remember, according to the vision, there was no afterbirth or umbilical cord)?

Nita:

Again, it’s a ritual offering; a ritual state.
There were no doubt others who conceived and bore children with no sin involved in those acts, but they also were required to fulfill the rite.

I’ve heard this before, and I’ve asked some Rabbi’s about this offering, and it is generally given for “unknown sin”. I suggest that either Mary at least thought she had sinned (and could, with a clear conscience, make an offering for unknown sin), or she knowingly bore false witness (lied) against herself, which is a sin! The only other possibility is that Mary didn’t know she was sinless, which would raise the question - If she didn’t know, how can you?

Nita:

I’ll repeat again what I said in my previous post #38. The unclean states are defined ritual states. It is conceiving and bearing a child that defines a woman as being in an unclean state after childbirth and requires sacrifices. Mary conceived and bore a Son. It is not the bleeding.

Since blood is a common element in ALL human childbirth (even if it’s only the cutting of the umbilical cord), why couldn’t that be the reason for the offering? Keep in mind, it was the blood that makes a woman unclean during her menstrual cycle (Lev 15:19-30). I also notice that a sin offering was required for this as well, which means Mary made several sin offerings in her life, unless you don’t think she had a regular cycle

 

[Christopher68]

This is an interesting thread topic. I am curious about several things relative to Mary being referred to as ‘ever virgin’.

Does this mean that - after Jesus was born - that Mary ‘never’ had any relations with Joseph? If not, why not? Doesn’t this contradict the scripture passage stating that husbands and wives ‘should’ have relations? Why would remaining a virgin be more noble than having a satisfying marriage in all ways? Isn’t this quite a sacrifice to ask of both Mary and Joseph? Why was this asked of them? And for what purpose?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi, friend. Good questions.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

You object, “Are you also then implying that the Wisdom passage denies the the miraculous conception/origin of Jesus in Mary’s womb (since that “origin” obviously occurred in a manner different from all the other kings)?”

I thought about this. Wisdom 7:5-6 was authored, ultimately, by the Holy Spirit – by almighty God, Himself, in other words.

I think that God had Christ – His Own dearly beloved Son – in mind more than anyone else, when the Holy Spirit inspired Wisdom 7:5-6.

I think that Wisdom 7:4 refers to “swaddling clothes” to make it clear, to an in-your-face extent, that, yes, Wiosdom 7:5-6 is preeminently about Jesus, and that God made Jesus’ origin “like” ours as much as consistency of rational logic, which is “in” and “of” God, permitted. So, perhaps the moment of the Incarnation was not a “non-event” for Mary. Perhaps God imitated human physiology perfectly by use of a divinely-created male gamete. Who knows. God says that the origin of Jesus the King, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was like the origin of any other king. God’s personal assurance to me, in Wisdom 7:5-6, is good enough for me.

Your question raises another interesting issue: Does the Church’s right to interpret Scripture for the Church include a veto power over Scripture?

The question answers itself – logically, it can’t, because every vetoed Scripture becomes another sentence opposed to Church authority.

You also object, “It is conceiving and bearing a child that defines a woman as being in an unclean state after childbirth. It is not the bleeding.”

I do not believe your assurance.

Leviticus 12 – in other words, God, AND OUR OWN MAGISTERIUM – expressly assure me that the purpose of the ritual is to make the woman “clean again after her flow of blood. Leviticus 12:7.” And that statement of purpose is the sentence before the sentence which dramatically declares, “Such is the law for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl child.”

In talking about “her flow of blood,” Who is God likely to have in minmd more than any other woman?

In my opinion, Mary.

So, I simply disagree with you on this one. I was raised to believe that the Church’s teaching is infallible in all ways, on faith and morals. But, it is troubling to see Scripture and the Church squared-off against each other, toe to toe. My suspicion is that when Pope Martin taught what he did on in partu virginity, he said nothing to cope with the difficulties raised by Scripture because he did not even think of the difficulties raised by Scripture.

There are more difficulties in Scripture than we discuss here.

Read Luke 2:22-23. “Opened the womb” identifies Jesus? Now, probably, “opened the womb” refers to the first out of the womb, but there is an overall larger assumption that the one they talk about was “born.” I.e., if Luke believed that Jesus “beamed down” out of Mary, would he have applied this verse to Jesus?

Also, Luke uses to refer to Jesus’ birth the exact same two Greek words, gennao and tikto, which Luke uses to refer to John the Baptist’s birth.

Tikto is the really interesting one. In its root, it refers to “liquiding forth” a baby.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

This is an interesting thread topic. I am curious about several things relative to Mary being referred to as ‘ever virgin’.

Does this mean that - after Jesus was born - that Mary ‘never’ had any relations with Joseph? If not, why not? Doesn’t this contradict the scripture passage stating that husbands and wives ‘should’ have relations? Why would remaining a virgin be more noble than having a satisfying marriage in all ways? Isn’t this quite a sacrifice to ask of both Mary and Joseph? Why was this asked of them? And for what purpose?

The Church’s answer to this, which I read years ago, is a good answer: Joseph and Mary recognized that something incalculably important, but resembling an intimate human sexual relationship, happened between God and Mary, with the consequence that Mary seemed to both Mary and Joseph to be “God’s property,” which both Mary and Joseph were opposed to violating with an earthly sexual relationship.

 

[Christopher68]

The Church’s answer to this, which I read years ago, is a good answer: Joseph and Mary recognized that something incalculably important, but resembling an intimate human sexual relationship, happened between God and Mary, with the consequence that Mary seemed to both Mary and Joseph to be “God’s property,” which both Mary and Joseph were opposed to violating with an earthly sexual relationship.

Peter,

Thank you for your reply. That’s actually the best answer I’ve read on this. It still seems to me like Mary and Joseph sacrificed quite a lot in this regard, but now I have a better understanding why they likely did so.

 

[Cachonga]

Peter Dawson:

The Church’s answer to this, which I read years ago, is a good answer: Joseph and Mary recognized that something incalculably important, but resembling an intimate human sexual relationship, happened between God and Mary, with the consequence that Mary seemed to both Mary and Joseph to be “God’s property,” which both Mary and Joseph were opposed to violating with an earthly sexual relationship.

I disagree. I suggest that, since there is no direct scriptural evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable to believe they DID enjoy normal, marital relations. I would also assert that the biblical references to the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus does, in fact, refer to actual brothers and sisters, not cousins or “near kinsmen” (whatever that might be). In short, I find more biblical support for Joseph and Mary having a normal, marital relationship (which includes having other children) than I find for the position put forth by the “infallible” church.
Peter Dawson:

Does the Church’s right to interpret Scripture for the Church include a veto power over Scripture?

Would this also apply to where the church “infallibly” declares that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus DOES NOT mean brothers and sisters, but COULD mean cousins, or even step-brothers and step-sisters (which brings up a whole new set of problems)?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi, Cachonga.

“I disagree. I suggest that, since there is no direct scriptural evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable to believe they DID enjoy normal, marital relations. I would also assert that the biblical references to the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus does, in fact, refer to actual brothers and sisters, not cousins or “near kinsmen” (whatever that might be). In short, I find more biblical support for Joseph and Mary having a normal, marital relationship (which includes having other children) than I find for the position put forth by the “infallible” church.”

I will deal with this later. Mark, in his gospel, is actually careful to imply to the ages that these “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were not blood brothers and sisters.

 

[Cachonga]

Peter Dawson:

I will deal with this later. Mark, in his gospel, is actually careful to imply to the ages that these “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were not blood brothers and sisters.

And how did he do that?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

And how did he do that?

Here is your answer…

If we turn our Bibles to Mark’s account of the crucifixion, we read…

**40 There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.
41 These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. Mark 15:40-41. **

Clearly, this second Mary is not Mary Jesus’ mother. Identifying the mother of Jesus as “the mother of James and Joses and Salome” would be like saying, “The first President of the United States, and the Commander in Chief of the Revoilutionary Army was Martha’s husband.”

Now, note two things about this other Mary: She had three children, at least, James and Joses and a girl named Salome.

And she – and one would think her children, too – followed Jesus in Galilee.

Now, flip over to Mark 6:1-3, one of the brother and sister verses…

**1 He departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples.
2 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. **

First, where was Jesus’ “native place”? Answer: Nazareth of Galilee.

So, note well: Verse 6.3, one of the brother/sister verses which cause such an uproar, refers to a time when this lady Mary was following Jesus, probably with her children James and Joses and a daughter.

Now, let’s see who is up in Galilee with Jesus, in Mark 6:3…

James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and a daughter.

James/James

Joses/Joses

Salome/daughter.

So, the place and time are right. The names are right.

The people accompanying Mary Jesus’ mother are the children of another Mary – a kinswoman.

 

[Cachonga]

Interesting theory. If I had never heard it before, I might be impressed. Maybe we should take a closer look at this,

First of all, in Mark 6:3 (and preceding), we see that Jesus was in the place where He grew up (His “native place”). Yes, this was Nazareth in Galilee. These people knew Him and His family. They played together; went to school together; attended each others Bar Mitzvah; and they commented on this, naming His mother (Mary), 4 “brothers” (James, Joses, Simon, Judas) and made reference to at least 2 “sisters” (there is a plural there, remember?). No mention of another Mary (or ANY OTHER female other than His sisters)! Why not? Because she wasn’t the mother of these brothers and sister of Jesus!

Now let’s look at Mark 15:40-41. I notice that Mary (not His mother) was the mother of the younger James (seems to me there’s at least 1 more James running around who’s probably older than this James). Too bad the folks who knew Jesus forgot to add that bit of information, don’t you think? Or maybe, just maybe, there were a lot of people named James; and Joses; and Simon; and Judas (seems strange that Simon, Judas and the other sister(s) aren’t mentioned by Mark, especially if he was trying to make it clear that these were not actual brothers and sisters of Jesus). Also, how do you know this other Mary is a kinswoman of His mother, and not just a believer in Jesus?

 

[jmjconder]

“** In short, I find more biblical support for Joseph and Mary having a normal, marital relationship (which includes having other children) than I find for the position put forth by the “infallible” church.**”

You are saying that the Catholic Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is a fabrication? For if, they had marital relations she would not be Ever-Virgin. In addition, you state there is “more” support that is biblical for Joseph and Mary having a “normal, marital relationship” than the Church has for the Dogma itself.

Please prove both of your statements from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Interesting theory. If I had never heard it before, I might be impressed. Maybe we should take a closer look at this,

First of all, in Mark 6:3 (and preceding), we see that Jesus was in the place where He grew up (His “native place”). Yes, this was Nazareth in Galilee. These people knew Him and His family. They played together; went to school together; attended each others Bar Mitzvah; and they commented on this, naming His mother (Mary), 4 “brothers” (James, Joses, Simon, Judas) and made reference to at least 2 “sisters” (there is a plural there, remember?). No mention of another Mary (or ANY OTHER female other than His sisters)! Why not? Because she wasn’t the mother of these brothers and sister of Jesus!

Now let’s look at Mark 15:40-41. I notice that Mary (not His mother) was the mother of the younger James (seems to me there’s at least 1 more James running around who’s probably older than this James). Too bad the folks who knew Jesus forgot to add that bit of information, don’t you think? Or maybe, just maybe, there were a lot of people named James; and Joses; and Simon; and Judas (seems strange that Simon, Judas and the other sister(s) aren’t mentioned by Mark, especially if he was trying to make it clear that these were not actual brothers and sisters of Jesus). Also, how do you know this other Mary is a kinswoman of His mother, and not just a believer in Jesus?

That was inference. I am a lawyer here in the Delaware Valley to families here from both East Asia and West Asia. On both sides of the continent, family members would have been called upon to escort a widow, in a not-well-policed area, because of appearances. “Appearing proper” is important on both sides of the continent, and long has been.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You are saying that the Catholic Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is a fabrication? For if, they had marital relations she would not be Ever-Virgin. In addition, you state there is “more” support that is biblical for Joseph and Mary having a “normal, marital relationship” than the Church has for the Dogma itself.

Please prove both of your statements from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Hi, friend.

I did not post what your quote says I posted.

That is the fabrication. Yours.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Look, it’s entirely possible that Mary gave birth to Christ Jesus in the ordinary, human way. She. Would. Still. Have. Been. A. Virgin.

Look, please forgive me that the subject obliges me to discuss these sacred matters in unbecoming detail, but an unbroken hymen and untravelled birth canal are not defining attributes of virginity. The physical markers of labor and childbirth would be a pretty convincing argument against virginity in any woman who had not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but the latter is precisely what happened with Mary. There are myriad virgins out there with broken hymens, and if miraculous conceptions were common, there’d be many virgins out there with birth canals that had seen use.

I’m not persuaded of Mary’s perpetual virginity (an argument I’ll leave for a different thread), but even if I were, her endurance of a normal labor/delivery wouldn’t faze me or affect my belief in that respect.

P.S.: Although I understand the arguments suggesting that Mary was exempt from the curses of Eve, they don’t hold water. Jesus himself was obliged to live “by the sweat of his brow” and otherwise shoulder the burdens laid upon Adam, so there’s no call to think the Blessed Virgin had a free pass.