"virginity even in the act of giving birth"

[grannymh]

Mark 77 said that virginity has nothing to do with childbirth, it is simply means no sexual intercourse. Well, that’s why I was/am confused. This *is *indeed the meaning of the word “virgin.”

But… it looks like the Church has added a new meaning to the word, in addition to the original meaning?

I have been studying the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In order to be confirmed as a Catholic, I have to believe all that the church teaches.

So then… it looks like I have to belief that Jesus Christ, our Lord, went right through the walls of the uterus and into the world.
Hmmm…that’s quite remarkable for a non-resurrected body. Not impossible (nothing is, for God). Just remarkable. In fact, it is/would be such a first class miracle that it is quite surprising to me that Luke didn’t mention it. He just says that the time came for her to be delivered, andshe brought forth her firstborn son. It’s just like what the scriptures says about John the Baptist’s birth.

Thank you all for your replies. For the moment, I am skeptical. But I will think it over.

Hopefully, I can help sort this out. As far as I know, there is no doctrine giving the details of how exactly Jesus was born. So rest easy.

There is a lot of speculation which is only that. You will find that many Catholic theologians will give opinions. It is important to remember that they are speaking as individuals. It is the teaching of the Magisterium which results in formal doctrines.

There is the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God. I’ve seen part of it and it totally praises Mary’s virginity. There have been some people who have read into this doctrine more than what is there. They have taken some phrases out of context which is causing confusion. This is so unnecessary.

Mary’s original choice of remaining a virgin was sanctified by the presence of Jesus in her womb through the power of the Holy Spirit and not by man. Mary was truly holy because of her Immaculate Conception and as such could carry Jesus in her womb until (as Luke writes) the time came for her to have her Child. Mary was perfectly pure. There was no need for some unnatural birth.

What is most important is that she, through her human body, brought into the world Jesus Christ. As a mother, I find this the most amazing thing of all. When I first looked upon each baby, I knew I had a miracle in my arms. When Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling clothes she knew she held God.

And when you receive Holy Communion, you will be like Mary in that you know you have God within you.

 

[jmjconder]

“Also, as you point out, this would have been a miracle, and both the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition teach us that Christ’s first miracle occurred after His sojourn in the desert and His battle with Satan, at the Wedding of Cana.”

His first miracle was at Cana. Hmm… good point!

Yes Jesus first miracle was at Cana…His virgin birth was not HIS miracle…it was a miracle of the Holy Spirit just as was His conception was not HIS miracle rather a miracle of the Holy Spirit.

His virgin birth was not a normal human birth as all women are familar it…Jesus was Divine and His birth was a miracle and did not in any way shape or form injure/shatter/scare/scratch/mar/harm Mary’s womb…otherwise it would not have been a virgin birth. Mary was Ever-Virgin including the delivery process of Jesus. You need to read the Church Father’s. If Mary had a normal delivery process of Jesus…she would not be Ever-Virgin for the birth process would have left her a non-virgin. That is a mere physical truth ~ for her womb would have been no longer pure and untouched. Jesus birth is a miracle of the Holy Spirit just as His conception was.

 

[grannymh]

Yes Jesus first miracle was at Cana…His virgin birth was not HIS miracle…it was a miracle of the Holy Spirit just as was His conception was not HIS miracle rather a miracle of the Holy Spirit.

His virgin birth was not a normal human birth as all women are familar it…Jesus was Divine and His birth was a miracle and did not in any way shape or form injure/shatter/scare/scratch/mar/harm Mary’s womb…otherwise it would not have been a virgin birth. Mary was Ever-Virgin including the delivery process of Jesus. You need to read the Church Father’s. If Mary had a normal delivery process of Jesus…she would not be Ever-Virgin for the birth process would have left her a non-virgin. That is a mere physical truth ~ for her womb would have been no longer pure and untouched. Jesus birth is a miracle of the Holy Spirit just as His conception was.

Pardon me. The Church Fathers are very important. But it is the Magisterium which decides on dogma and thus has the final word when it comes to Divine Revelation.
So in an area where everyone, including St. Thomas Aquinas, had many varied thoughts about our dear Blessed Mother, it is best to check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Of course, the birth of Jesus, true God and true man, would be a miracle. However,
some of the above is not completely accurate regarding gestation and birthing. Note that Jesus did have a human nature. He was like us in all things but sin.

As a mother of six, I would like to explain a few things about birthing to you, but I refrain from posting these kinds of intimate details. However, post 13 did explain one aspect in a very respectful way so I suggest you read that and I will be happy to expand from there through a PM.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[Nita]

Some quotes from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”:
The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under Pope Martin I, stressed the threefold character of Mary’s virginity teaching of the “blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary” that: “she conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost, generated without injury (to her virginity), and her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth” (D256) …

Mary’s virginity includes …a constant virginal disposition, …freedom from inordinate motions of sexual desire, and virginitas corporis, that is physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers primarily to her bodily integrity.

Same source under “Virginity During the Birth of Jesus”:
Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains (cf S. th. III 28,2).
…
Isaiah 7:14 announces that the maiden (as a virgin) would give birth. The Fathers also, in a typical sense, refer to the virgin birth of Our Lord
the words of the Prophet Ezechiel on the closed gates (Ez 44:2; cf St. Ambrose Ep. 42,6; St. Jerome, Ep. 49, 21);
the words of the Prophet Isaias on the painless birth (Is 66:7; cf. St. Irenaeus, Ep 54; st. John Damascene, De fide orth, IV 14;
and the words of the Song of Songs on the closed garden and the sealed well (Hl. 4:12; cf. St. Jerome, Adv. Jov. I 31, Ep. 49:21).

Ezekiel 44:2 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.

Isaiah 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.

(The author of “Fundamentals…” does also note that “according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act…”
But that is not how the ECF’s understood the teaching.)

There are also a couple of Psalm verses that speak to me of Our Lord’s miraculous birth:
Psalms 22:9 (a Messianic Psalm) Yet thou art He who took Me from the womb; Thou didst keep me safe upon My mother’s breasts.
{Psalms 21:10 in Douay: For Thou art He that hast drawn Me out of the womb: …}

Psalms 71:6 …Thou art He who took Me from My mother’s womb. My praise is continually of Thee.

 

[Nita]

Another reference:
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.
(bolding mine)
If the bolded part is not a reference to some sort of miraculous birth, what could it possibly refer to!

 

[grannymh]

Another reference:
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.
(bolding mine)
If the bolded part is not a reference to some sort of miraculous birth, what could it possibly refer to!

Just a few points points before I leave this thread. Sexual relations involves body integrity so what

 

[marlo]

My answer to the OP is that, Yes, she remained a virgin even in the act of giving birth,
how is that? we do not know, some Father’s of the church provided explanation as already posted by some CAF members,

my answer though, is that Mary is the New Eve, therefore, my thinking is that, if Eve did not sin, this will be the way where every child will be born of any women, A painless birth. My Opinion is that the painful birth and virginal corruption is a result of the curse that God has given to Eve when she sinned in the Garden.

Another reference: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.
(bolding mine)If the bolded part is not a reference to some sort of miraculous birth, what could it possibly refer to!

 

[grannymh]

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.

 

[NotWorthy]

my answer though, is that Mary is the New Eve, therefore, my thinking is that, if Eve did not sin, this will be the way where every child will be born of any women, A painless birth. My Opinion is that the painful birth and virginal corruption is a result of the curse that God has given to Eve when she sinned in the Garden.

Remember, God promised to **increase **the pain of child-birth - not **introduce **pain into child birth.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I was reading paragraph 499 of the Catholic Catechism. It says:

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.

In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

What does this mean?
Does it mean that Mary did not give birth to Christ by vaginal delivery? If that’s what it means, then does that mean that Jesus was in Mary’s womb, and then…suddenly, he was outside the womb, laying in Mary’s arms?

Or what?

This doctrine, referred to as “in partu virginity,” or “virginity even in parturition,” is one which, in my opinion, is an error by the Magisterium which (also in my opinion) contradicts even the Biblical canon of the Cathoilic Church.

In effect, the doctrine forces Catholics to interpret Luke’s gospel in a way which infers that Mary is a liar. It also seems to squarely contradict the plain language of the Book of Wisdom. It also stretches the meaning of language to the point of snapping. Proponents of the doctrine also come across as the worst kind of hypocrites: They adopt a doctrine about the condition of Mary’s genetalia, making us think about Mary’s genetalia, and then, when folks like me object that doctrinal proponents are twisting Jesus’ birth into an odd unnatural event and focusing in on Mary’s genitals in an outrageously disrespectful way, THEY, the ones who support this horrible doctrine about Mary’s genetalia, accuse Mary’ and Jesus’ defenders of what they have already done, to silence opposition.

They should just get rid of the doctrine.

 

[Ron_Conte]

What does this mean?
Does it mean that Mary did not give birth to Christ by vaginal delivery? If that’s what it means, then does that mean that Jesus was in Mary’s womb, and then…suddenly, he was outside the womb, laying in Mary’s arms?

The Magisterium has not defined what the virgin birth of Christ means. It is an open question as to whether the birth was in the ordinary manner, but with an accompanying miracle, or whether it was wholely miraculous, without any part of the usual process of delivery.

This article presents a theological opinion which is also found in the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and of Saint Bridget of Sweden, that the virgin birth of Christ was entirely miraculous. First he was in the womb, and next he was fully delivered, miraculously, out of the womb, with no part of the usual process of delivery.
catholicplanet.com/virgin/virginity-Jesus-Mary.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

This doctrine, referred to as “in partu virginity,” or “virginity even in parturition,” is one which, in my opinion, is an error by the Magisterium which (also in my opinion) contradicts even the Biblical canon of the Cathoilic Church…

…They should just get rid of the doctrine.

I’ve asked you this before Peter and I’m going to have to ask again. Are you sure you are Catholic? Or to be more specific, "Are you what other Catholics would consider ‘Catholic’"? Because in my mind, that dog don’t hunt.

Maybe after reading your post, others on these threads will understand where I’m coming from when I ask this.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Magisterium has not defined what the virgin birth of Christ means. It is an open question as to whether the birth was in the ordinary manner, but with an accompanying miracle, or whether it was wholely miraculous, without any part of the usual process of delivery.

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…

Nah. I disagree. If the birth was normal followed by a miracle, then, definitionally, the “ever-ness” of the “Mary Ever Virgin” concept was violated in time, so that, contrary to the teaching, her “integrity” WAS violated.

The uninterrupted integrity definition makes a normal birth impossible. It requires that Christ have “beamed down,” which violates both Wisdom 7:5-6 and Luke 2.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I’ve asked you this before Peter and I’m going to have to ask again. Are you sure you are Catholic? Or to be more specific, "Are you what other Catholics would consider ‘Catholic’"? Because in my mind, that dog don’t hunt.

Maybe after reading your post, others on these threads will understand where I’m coming from when I ask this.

Hi, NotWorthy.

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…

Finish your analysis. The sacrifice of the two turtledoves or pigeons is the sacrifice having the purpose of cleansing a woman who has given birth in a bloody fashion of the blood of childbirth. See Leviticus 12.

If there was no breach of integrity, then Mary did not bleed.

That meant that by engaging in the sacrifice, she was making the Temple believe that she bled, when she did not bleed.

She lied.

So, you are saying that the Blessed Mother is a liar?

You ask, “Are you a Catholic, Mr. Dawson?” But your position – not my position, but your position – infers that Mary deceived.

Worse, your position states that she abused a ritual to deceive.

For abusing a ritual in God’s law, 1 Samuel 2:12-17, the sons of Eli were killed by God, 1 Samuel 2:27-34.

So, asking, “Are you Catholic?” may make you feel pretty good, but maybe you need to finish the analysis.

Additionally, Jesus is a king. Matthew 21:1-5, John 12:14-15. Yet, Wisdom 7:5-6 assures us that all kings are born alike.

So, it is not so simple, my religious friend. Who is the Catholic? He who maintains, in effect, that Jesus wasn’t born in the human way so that He isn’t really “fully man,” and the most pure and holy Blessed Virgin Mary must have deceived the world with abuse of a ritual? Or he that says, “Jesus was born just like any other king, in accord with Wisdom 7:5-6. The integrity of Mary’s genetive tract was therefore breached. Mary bled. Therefore, her use of the two-bird sacrifice was proper and fully in accord with God’s law. Therefore, Mary is not a liar.”

No joke, calmly ask yourself, “Am I, NotWorthy, Catholic?”

When Liberius taught theology he himself later condemned, was Liberius Catholic, or Athanasius? (Which is why I brought that case up.)

 

[Cachonga]

jmjcondor:

Your view is in opposition to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as defined by the Catholic Church…please read and pray about what the Church teaches.

This dogma (apparently) relies upon non-scriptural sources (which I already pointed out) and is without Biblical support. I further assert that the dogmas of Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption are also without Biblical evidence, and should be rejected. The dogma of Mary as Mother of God was originally stated to prove Jesus was fully God and fully man (this was in response to a heresy that was going around at the time), not to elevate Mary. I think there is sufficient evidence in Scripture to prove Jesus is fully God and fully man, therefore I also reject this dogma.

 

[jmjconder]

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.

The Virgin Mary spoke to Saint Bridget about the presence of the Son of God in her womb and about His Virgin Birth.

“And when I had Him in my womb, I bore Him without pain, without any weight or feeling of inconvenience. In all things I humbled myself, knowing that He was almighty whom I bore. And when I brought Him forth, I brought Him forth without pain and sin, as I conceived Him . . . . And as He entered all my members with the joy of my whole soul, so with the joy of my whole body, my soul exulting with ineffable joy, He came forth, my virginity untouched.” [35]

“And therefore, know truly, that although men, according to human ideas, would assert that my Son was born in the usual way, it is true beyond all doubt that He was born as I tell thee and thou hast seen.” [36]

The Virgin Mary clearly told Saint Bridget that her Divine Son Jesus Christ was not born in the usual way, but rather in a way which was entirely virginal.

God also showed the Virgin Birth of Jesus to Saint Bridget:

“When all these things were ready, then the Virgin, kneeling with great reverence, placed herself in prayer, with her back to the crib, her face eastward, raised to Heaven. She stood with uplifted hands, and eyes fixed on Heaven, rapt as it were, in an ecstasy of contemplation, inebriated with the divine sweetness. And while she thus stood in prayer, I beheld her Child move in her womb, and at once in a moment, and in the twinkling of an eye, she brought forth her Son, from whom such ineffable light and splendor radiated, that the sun could not be compared to it . . . and so sudden and momentary was that mode of bearing, that I could not perceive or discern how, or in what part she brought forth. Nevertheless, I immediately beheld that glorious Babe lying naked and most pure on the ground, His flesh most clean from all filth or impurity. . . . When the Virgin perceived that she had been delivered, she immediately bowed her head, and joining her hands, adored her Son with great respect and reverence, saying: ‘Welcome, my God, and my Lord, and my Son.’ ” [37]

Saint Bridget says, “His flesh most clean from all filth or impurity,” meaning that there was no blood or fluids or anything else on the body of Jesus when He was born. The miracle of the birth of Jesus Christ was perfect and complete. There was no need to cut an umbilical cord. There was no afterbirth. Everything necessary was provided by God miraculously. No midwife was needed because the miracle of the birth of Jesus Christ was not lacking in any way. And the same is true for the miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary.

The birth of Jesus Christ occurred solely and entirely by a miracle of God and not in the usual way. When Jesus was born, He went from His mother Mary’s womb to the outside world immediately and directly by a miracle of God, without any part whatsoever of the usual process of delivery. First He was in the womb, then He was out of the womb, without having to travel through any places in between. God alone could bring about such a virginal and miraculous birth. The Virgin Births of both Jesus and Mary occurred solely, entirely, and necessarily by means of a miracle of God and not in the usual way. [38]

 

[grannymh]

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.

 

[grannymh]

A few posts earlier had this link to the writings of Saint Bridget…read her beautiful account of Jesus’ birth…

Please note that the writings of Saint Bridget are considered private revelation and are not a part of the Deposit of Faith. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, the section titled 'Christ Jesus - Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation" paragraphs 65 -67. Please read paragraph 67 slowly.

 

[Cachonga]

jmjcondor:

The Virgin Mary spoke to Saint Bridget about the presence of the Son of God in her womb and about His Virgin Birth.

It seems to me that if God wanted us to believe this, He would have had it clearly recorded in scripture. I do believe the Scriptures, but I seriously question “visions” of people who have passed from this life, especially when they give extra-biblical doctrines. What makes you think Saint Bridget’s “revelations” weren’t from demons impersonating Mary or God? Remember, the devil is a deceiver, and we are commanded to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). Again, I point out that there is no Biblical basis to believe this dogma (if there was, you wouldn’t need to look for extra-biblical sources, would you?)!

Idaho, I pray that God will lead you into His truth!

 

[Nita]

Hi, NotWorthy.

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…

Finish your analysis. The sacrifice of the two turtledoves or pigeons is the sacrifice having the purpose of cleansing a woman who has given birth in a bloody fashion of the blood of childbirth. See Leviticus 12.

If there was no breach of integrity, then Mary did not bleed.

That meant that by engaging in the sacrifice, she was making the Temple believe that she bled, when she did not bleed.

She lied.

So, you are saying that the Blessed Mother is a liar?

You ask, “Are you a Catholic, Mr. Dawson?” But your position – not my position, but your position – infers that Mary deceived.

Worse, your position states that she abused a ritual to deceive.

For abusing a ritual in God’s law, 1 Samuel 2:12-17, the sons of Eli were killed by God, 1 Samuel 2:27-34

What a bunch of nonsense.

1. The Samuel reference has nothing to do with the rite of purification.
2. The rite of purification doesn’t make an exception, – saying no sacrifice needed if the birth was not in the ordinary way; nothing that says no sacrifice required if birth takes place without the shedding of blood.
   Read it carefully. It’s bearing a child that makes her ritually unclean and requires a ritual sacrifice. Mary conceived and bore a male child - just not in the normal manner.

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.

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.