What is the mystery in the Third Joyful Mystery?

[FrDavid96]

I have nothing more to say on this matter …

I am sorry to hear that. I do feel that your insights would have been very valuable had we had the opportunity to actually discuss this issue (and the original question which caused it, several threads back) in a reasonable and theologically sound format. For my part, I’m going to keep attempting it, for the time being.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

I think the proof I’ve provided stands on its own merits.

Not even close.

I think so. And so does the author of that article which I posted. He also happens to be a Catholic priest.

Quite frankly, your reading of the texts borders on the superstitious.

According to you. But there are plenty of people who read it as I do. And they don’t feel it necessary to spin the clear words of the Popes, Councils and Catechism.

You present your own interpretation, not based on any kind of accepted methods of reasoning or theology, and you call them the de fide teachings of the Church.

Nor do you. Lol! But why am I the subject of the thread all of a sudden? Have you ever heard of this technique for argumentation?

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/Submit
adverb & adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

[Kei]

There’s a wealth of significance to meditate upon in the 3rd joyful mystery, like the scorn and rejection Mary and Joseph endured in Bethlehem, the poverty of the stable wherein God came into the world, Mary’s high contemplation and surpassing love at the moment of the birth if our Lord, the Eternal Word’s departure from the womb of Mary while maintaining her virginity, the angel’s adoration and hymnody at the birth of Jesus Christ, the captivating beauty of Christ’s Divine Infancy, the coming of the shepherds to the stable with their small presents, the circumcision of Christ and His Affectionate pains, the imposition of the Name of Jesus and the Name’s grandeur, the adoration of the Magi kings and the their gifts, the fact of Jesus being born as a man, the Son of Mary, assuming the human nature and body, the fact of the Holy Ghost and Mary by God bringing the world to Jesus, etc.
Quite a profound mystery.

Onto the question of what it means when we say Mary was a perpetual Virgin and whether her…biology remained unchanged, it would seem to me that the answer would be yes. Allow me to mention why this is worthy of not disbelief.
First, and perhaps my least persuasive piece of evidence, I seem to recall a story of a miracle in which a lady tried to test Mary’s virginity and instead, her hand was burned.
I honestly have no doubt that someone might try to “test” this virginity of hers, tradition teaches she was consecrated, and “and angel came and told me I would give birth to the Son of God” isn’t something a lot of people would readily believe.
But further, many saints tell us to believe the stories of the saints and their miracles, not to disbelieve them. If it seems that most people believed in the past in her biology remaining virginal, then I see no reason to disbelieve it when we have no evidence to the contrary.
But now moving on, she was impregnated through remaining a virgin. She then gave a miraculous birth. Why would this not include a biological miracle?
And now I will present my argument:
Mary lived a while after the Resurrection before she was assumed. Obviously the story is that she was a virgin and Jesus is the Son of God. So, say someone wants to “test” her, and she doesn’t have the cultural authority to refuse. We teach she is perpetually virgin. She had no other children. If she fails the biological test, then the whole virgin birth thing falls through, as does the credibility of the teaching of the Apostles. It would simply make sense for God to leave it in tact. If she were in fact consecrated in the manner of the teachings of tradition, then this is most likely to have been very relevant.

No offense to the priests, but this seems like splitting hairs or trying to see what you can get away with. You can’t show that her biology was changed, it’s not like you’re fighting for truth but for what it is possible to not believe as there is no real reason to doubt it. That is my two cents. The problem is that we need MORE Faith, not less! We don’t need to know how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.

 

[FrDavid96]

No offense to the priests, but this seems like splitting hairs or trying to see what you can get away with.

No. Not in the least way.
One does such a thing when he knows he is doing something wrong. Since we already know that we can “get away with” making perfectly sound statements, the thought of getting away with it is absurd. Who do we fear that we need to “get away with” something? The Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith has already stated that a certain notion is not the teaching of the Church.

You can’t show that her biology was changed,

No one can show the contrary. The point is meaningless in either direction.

it’s not like you’re fighting for truth but for what it is possible to not believe as there is no real reason to doubt it.

Maybe you did not read my earlier posts in the other thread articulating exactly why there is reason.
In the same thread I articulate why there is no sound reason for holding to an outdated and merely speculative claim that serves no good purpose.

That is my two cents. The problem is that we need MORE Faith, not less! We don’t need to know how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle.

Someone asked a question. I proffered an answer. That’s what CAF message board is all about.

And please do not accuse anyone of advocating for less faith instead of more. That does not help your argument at all, to merely make an appeal to emotion.

I ended with some thoughts on “He was born.” I plan to take that further in the upcoming posts.

In the meantime, if you care to understand what I am trying to say here, read the other thread (which had to be closed because of some inappropriate and disturbing posts by a certain participant that caused offense).

 

[petra22]

I was swept away by your pointing out mysteries in the Third Joyful Mystery and I wanted to add… the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, angels made the announcement to the shepherds, he was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger like the angels said and I heard the name Bethlehem means Bread… all those things and more are profound mysteries… planned by his FATHER… Not that’s something to think about…

 

[FrDavid96]

There’s a wealth of significance to meditate upon in the 3rd joyful mystery, like the scorn and rejection Mary and Joseph endured in Bethlehem, the poverty of the stable wherein God came into the world, Mary’s high contemplation and surpassing love at the moment of the birth if our Lord, the Eternal Word’s departure from the womb of Mary while maintaining her virginity, the angel’s adoration and hymnody at the birth of Jesus Christ, the captivating beauty of Christ’s Divine Infancy, the coming of the shepherds to the stable with their small presents, the circumcision of Christ and His Affectionate pains, the imposition of the Name of Jesus and the Name’s grandeur, the adoration of the Magi kings and the their gifts, the fact of Jesus being born as a man, the Son of Mary, assuming the human nature and body, the fact of the Holy Ghost and Mary by God bringing the world to Jesus, etc.
Quite a profound mystery.

A good answer to the OPs actual question. Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

And now I will present my argument:
Mary lived a while after the Resurrection before she was assumed. Obviously the story is that she was a virgin and Jesus is the Son of God. So, say someone wants to “test” her, and she doesn’t have the cultural authority to refuse. We teach she is perpetually virgin. She had no other children. If she fails the biological test, then the whole virgin birth thing falls through, as does the credibility of the teaching of the Apostles. It would simply make sense for God to leave it in tact. If she were in fact consecrated in the manner of the teachings of tradition, then this is most likely to have been very relevant.

Unconvincing.

We can give a long list of things that happened in the Gospels but were later misunderstood. We cannot speculate on why God choose to either leave or omit anything from Sacred Scripture.

If the Evangelists had recorded more details in the Last Supper we wouldn’t have the question of leavened or unleavened.

If Christ had spoken different words about the permanence of marriage, we would not have so many people questioning that permanence.

The idea that God was trying to “fix” a future problem, one that would never happen anyway, by the early placement of evidence, does not match the God we know. Yes, He often foreshadowed one event with another. This is something entirely different.

God Himself certainly fore-knew that there would never be such a horrible “test” of the Blessed Mother. The idea that He would plant evidence in order to pass a test which would never happen is quite illogical.

 

[Kei]

I tried to make clear that I didn’t mean in an accusatory way but I went just a little over the character limit, sadly. I didn’t mean to imply you were knowingly trying to do something wrong, but getting carried away in thought exercises and all that, we all do that from time to time.
My point is mainly that it seems fairly sensible to believe that her biology was also miraculously kept in tact, and that as it has been held by many in the Church in Faith, that there is nothing wrong in believing it. It is not like geocentrism where it is a matter of truth.
I’m not saying you must believe it (most probably don’t think about it, including me before this discussion). The Church also doesn’t say you must believe St Anthony showed the Truth of the Eucharist via miracle against a Jew, or that St Padre Pio could know your sins without you mentioning them. But many saints tell us to believe the stories of the saints.
It is not as though it goes against truth.
And, who knows. Perhaps one reason the early Church believed in it so much was that someone tried to…test it… I don’t know why you seem so sure that such an awful test would never happen. Would you just believe it if someone who vowed to be a virgin then got pregnant and said it was miraculous if you believed there was a surefire way to test it? We are talking about the same people who denied Christ when He was right in front of them. In fact, I dare say it was LIKELY that such a test were to occur. It would not be planting evidence as that implies faking something; Mary truly was a virgin and as such should pass such a test.
I am sorry, I don’t know what other forum you mean, I’m still new to the forum and how it all works.

 

[FrDavid96]

My point is mainly that it seems fairly sensible to believe that her biology was also miraculously kept in tact,

Why?
Seriously, why?
What value does this uphold? What truth does it prove? What purpose does it serve?
I know the answers to those questions as they were asked in past centuries.
This is not a meaningless question: why?

What do you see as the value being upheld in such a claim?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Two priests there affirm that the teaching is that Jesus was born in the normal manner and the faithful are not required to believe in any miracle at the biological level (lets please not go into explicit female biology here).

The Blessed Bishop Fulton Sheen explained the Annunciation and Virgin Birth, “like a light that penetrates a window without disturbing the glass”.

Which remains a mystery.
Mystery meaning that not all that is divinely revealed can be fully understood by human undertakings and understandings. Let alone no carnal understanding of “Jesus was born in the normal manner” remains suspended without full knowledge of the divine revelation. Thus an opinion or just speculation.

Mystery as defined above does “not required to believe in any miracle at the biological level”. A mystery divinely revealed PRODUCES FAITH, not a required belief.

When the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Blessed Virgin remains a mystery that produces faith in God. For the Word of God to become Incarnated in a virgin, which fulfilled God’s prophet’s remains a mystery, that cannot and will not be exhausted by carnal minds that try to suspend faith in God’s divine revelation.

Taking their affirmation as a starting point what then is the mystery that we honour by the teaching that Mary was a virgin before, during and after Jesus’s birth?

The whole mystery produces faith in how God works in mysterious ways, and that God touched our humanity through the blessed Virgin Mary, when God incarnated our humanity for our sake.

We the Church are free to increase our faith contemplating these mysteries of God’s Incarnate Divine revelation through the blessed Virgin Mary. What we must not do is place faith aside and pretend man can define a mystery of God by Carnal understandings of “Jesus was born in the normal manner” in order to suspend faith or “believe in any miracle”.

Peace be with you

 

[Kei]

I am not so much that I think about what value something has for me to believe it like that.
It seems worthy of belief for many good, holy people have believed it, and it doesn’t in any way seem detrimental to our sanctification, but by their witness daresay if there is any effect it would be positive.
I suppose it shows that the entire ordeal of Christ’s birth was miraculous. She had no pain most likely since she was kept from original sin. I just see no reason for the hymen to break. She is a perpetual Virgin and so it simply makes sense for her body as well as soul to demonstrate that, the same body that was assumed into Heaven.
Now, although this is separate from birth pains, I believe breaking the hymen would hurt. Is your position that this happened when Christ was born?
Let me ask you also, what value do you get out of believing that Mary’s hymen broke despite being a virgin and giving a miraculous birth?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Maybe you did not read my earlier posts in the other thread articulating exactly why there is reason.

In the same thread I articulate why there is no sound reason for holding to an outdated and merely speculative claim that serves no good purpose.

FrDavid96, are you speculating that Faith in God’s divine revelation of the Virgin conception and Virgin birth of the Word incarnate is not a miracle divine revealed in the Mystery of God? I have no desire in reading a closed thread, that ended with negative exchanges of the Blessed Virgin Mary miracle birth. So can you please explain when did “sound reason” ever replace faith?

And please do not accuse anyone of advocating for less faith instead of more. That does not help your argument at all, to merely make an appeal to emotion.

I don’t mean to go off topic here with your above post, but I am shocked to read that you compared "Faith, “to merely make an appeal to emotion”? From your post above can you please clarify if I misunderstood your post?

 

[BlackFriar]

I require nothing of you. I’m a grown man and with a mind of my own. What is your goal in prolonging this discussion. As you said, we are each free to have our own opinion. Have you changed your mind? Are you now trying to convince me to side with you over Magisterial Teaching?

I have repeatedly conceded you may believe in the ancient legends if you wish.
The problem is you keep expressing yourself in such a way as to assert your view is the only acceptable way of interpreting the statements of the contemporary Magisterium.

You are mistaken.
@Don_Ruggero and @FrDavid96 and Cardinal Muller will likely concede you are entitled to believe the biological legends. At the same time they appear to interpret contemporary Magisterial statements in such a way that Catholics may also validly disbelieve those legends as well - and in fact they appear to lean to that way personally. You do not seem to accept this.

That is what is “prolonging” this discussion.

 

[brian_custer]

just trolls taunting about the “biology” of Jesus’ virgin birth

you’d think we’d’ve’d bigger fish to fry

believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity or don’t

I’ll keep saying my rosary

 

[BlackFriar]

What we must not do is place faith aside and pretend man can define a mystery of God by Carnal understandings of “Jesus was born in the normal manner” in order to suspend faith or “believe in any miracle”.

I am not quite sure what you are saying.
Accepting the order of nature re Jesus’s birth appears a perfectly valid position according to the highest authorities of the contemporary Church so long as we accept Mary never knew any man.
I don’t see that as diminishing Catholic faith in the least.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

What value does this uphold? What truth does it prove? What purpose does it serve?

I know the answers to those questions as they were asked in past centuries.

This is not a meaningless question: why?

What do you see as the value being upheld in such a claim?

I believe Luke the Physician who records the Gospel of the Annunciation and the Virgin birth gives ample value of physical properties of the Virgin Mary giving birth is a miracle and by divine revelation.

Grant it, Luke the physician does not give us any scientific language pertaining to the Blessed Virgin Mary conceiving and giving birth, because there is none to give that is nothing short of a miracle taking place.

Luke a physician, is upholding faith in a miracle divinely revealed by God in the Virgin birth.

God’s purpose for this divine revelation fulfills God’s prophetic Words through His prophets that “this child will be born of a Virgin” which produces Joy and faith in God’s people, when the Word of God became incarnated, which is nothing for God to do, but is a miracle to those who believe in God, who can do all things.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Accepting the order of nature re Jesus’s birth appears a perfectly valid position according to the highest authorities of the contemporary Church so long as we accept Mary never knew any man.

I don’t see that as diminishing Catholic faith in the least.

My post addressed this quote from the OP, “are not required to believe in any miracle at the biological level”. The Virgin Birth is a miracle to human standards and produces faith. This mystery does not require one to believe. God’s divine revelation never forces ones Conscience.

How that physical birth is transpired remains suspended in Faith as being a miracle on both physical attributes, when Mary immediately got up on a beast for a long journey into Egypt and spiritual attributes of the divine, when the Holy Spirit overshadows the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Here we can say when Luke records Simeon say, when the infant Jesus was brought to temple; “He will be a sign of contradiction”.

Jesus being born of a Virgin begins His sign of Contradiction when the divine Word of God became flesh.

Yes, we the Church are free to believe in the physical birth of Jesus which can stand to reason, so long as it never denies the miracle of the Word of God becoming flesh in and through the blessed Virgin Mary or reject that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained a Virgin before. during and after giving physical birth to the Incarnate Word of God.

This physical virgin birth takes place, which proves Jesus is fully God and fully human. But Luke our physician at the time does not give us scientific language and is silent. We do well to follow Luke the physician and apply our faith in the virgin birth, when science is silent by a scientific mind who forgoes the path of faith in the miracle of divine revelation.

 

[brian_custer]

best reply to this thread

 

[De_Maria]

I have repeatedly conceded you may believe in the ancient legends if you wish.

Ancient legends. That’s an interesting way for a Catholic to refer to Catholic Papal and Conciliar pronouncements.

I have repeatedly conceded you may believe

No you haven’t. You have repeatedly told me that I was wrong in my beliefs.

The problem is you keep expressing yourself in such a way as to assert your view is the only acceptable way of interpreting the statements of the contemporary Magisterium.

That’s only a problem for those who wish to assert that their view is the only acceptable way to interpret the Magisterium.

And, as I said earlier. Since when did I become the subject of this thread? Do you also adhere to the ad hominem method of argumentation?

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/Submit
adverb & adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

[BlackFriar]

My post addressed this quote from the OP, “are not required to believe in any miracle at the biological level”. The Virgin Birth is a miracle to human standards and produces faith. This mystery does not require one to believe. God’s divine revelation never forces ones Conscience.
How that physical birth is transpired remains suspended in Faith as being a miracle on both physical attributes, when Mary immediately got up on a beast for a long journey into Egypt and spiritual attributes of the divine, when the Holy Spirit overshadows the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Here we can say when Luke records Simeon say, when the infant Jesus was brought to temple; “He will be a sign of contradiction”.
Jesus being born of a Virgin begins His sign of Contradiction when the divine Word of God became flesh.
Yes, we the Church are free to believe in the physical birth of Jesus which can stand to reason, so long as it never denies the miracle of the Word of God becoming flesh in and through the blessed Virgin Mary or reject that the Blessed Virgin Mary remained a Virgin before. during and after giving physical birth to the Incarnate Word of God.
This physical virgin birth takes place, which proves Jesus is fully God and fully human. But Luke our physician at the time does not give us scientific language and is silent. We do well to follow Luke the physician and apply our faith in the virgin birth, when science is silent by a scientific mind who forgoes the path of faith in the miracle of divine revelation.

???