What is the mystery in the Third Joyful Mystery?

[BlackFriar]

This is a breakaway topic from the Virginitas in Partu topic which I recommend be read in its final stages to understand where this is coming from.

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).

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?

Is it that God became a man? (Which is a mystery but not a miracle in the strict theological meaning of that word).

Is it that Mary conceived knowing no man? (Which is a miracle but more to do with the Annunciation than the Nativity)?

 

[Michael16]

I think the lessons of the Nativity is Birth of our Lord and Savior and what the Word does when we surrender to it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I always thought the mystery was that God came down to us on earth in the form of a little human baby born (however you think he popped out, and I can’t say I care much which theory one follows biologically) to a human lady.

That to me is the third mystery right there.

I find the obsession with the birth thing to be weird and baffling.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Is it that Mary conceived knowing no man? (Which is a miracle but more to do with the Annunciation than the Nativity)?

I associate this with Annunciation.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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

I think you’ve worded this question in a leading way. I don’t see what her virginity has to do with the birth of Christ. Her virginity would be more of a Annunciation/conception issue, no?

Regardless, I think the very nature of the birth of a divine being on earth is a mystery. We tend to personify everything we experience. I’m not sure if it’s even possible not to do so. Given that, what other way could we describe an event in which a divine being is born. We have no choice but to see the birth through the eyes of a human being, but the event itself involves a divine element. It’s best then to acknowledge our limitations of understanding, and refer to such an event as a mystery.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think you’ve worded this question in a leading way. I don’t see what her virginity has to do with the birth of Christ. Her virginity would be more of a Annunciation/conception issue, no?

I think what the OP is referring to is the fact that the Church teaches that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

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. [154] In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” [155] And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”. [156]

[154] Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880.
[155] LG 57.
[156] Cf. LG 52.

I know I’ve seen theologians debate exactly what it means for the birth of Jesus to have happened “virginally”. I kind of agree with @Tis_Bearself that the discussion can be a little weird. I’m not sure what value there is in analyzing the mechanical aspects of how that might have happened.

But I have never thought of the Nativity (3rd Joyful Mystery) as being about those mechanical aspects. If you want to know why we reflect on that mystery, it is the same reason why we celebrate Christmas.

 

[LilyM]

This is a breakaway topic from the Virginitas in Partu topic which I recommend be read in its final stages to understand where this is coming from.

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).

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?

Is it that God became a man? (Which is a mystery but not a miracle in the strict theological meaning of that word).

Is it that Mary conceived knowing no man? (Which is a miracle but more to do with the Annunciation than the Nativity)?

A mystery doesn’t have to be something supernatural or a miracle. An unsolved crime is a mystery, but still a completely natural event.

There is nothing really supernatural or miraculous about, for example, the Scourging at the Pillar. It is somewhat mysterious in that some may find it difficult to understand or explain Jesus’ motivation or why it was significant in a way it wouldn’t be if it were you or I being scourged. But that’s about it.

 

[BlackFriar]

I think you’ve worded this question in a leading way. I don’t see what her virginity has to do with the birth of Christ.

The difficulty is rather explicit statements from the 300s which do exactly this - relating her Virginity to the actual moment of birth.

Take Trent for example:
“He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut…so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. …at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity….”

These are obviously delicate biological references.
As I say, the two Priests on the prior thread seem to say the Church does not teach anything specific re the biology.

The difficultly I see with this position is that if we do that then I no longer understand what the mystery (or even miracle) is that they refer to at the actual birth.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
These are obviously delicate biological references.
As I say, the two Priests on the prior thread seem to say the Church does not teach anything specific re the biology.
…

That is actually an extremely profound statement. Yes, it is.

Thanks for mentioning that. I just now noticed this thread. I was ignoring it earlier because I thought someone couldn’t remember the 3rd Mystery of the Rosary and needed a little help.

You said that these are delicate biological references. Yes, they are exactly that, they are references. They are euphemisms.

Now, let’s ask ourselves a very simple question: if the Church teaches that the faithful must believe something, anything, as a matter of faith de fide, then it makes no sense that such a necessary belief would be expressed merely in euphemisms!

If we “must” believe something, does it not stand to reason that the Church would actually tell us, in no uncertain terms, what we must believe?

The fact that no one can actually point to a place where the Church says plainly and openly “you must believe thusly” is itself proof that the Church does not require us to hold such a belief.

How can we be expected to be required to believe something which the Church never clearly articulates?

How can we be expected to give the assent of faith to a collection of euphemisms and poetic references? Can anyone explain that to me?

 

[BlackFriar]

The fact that no one can actually point to a place where the Church says plainly and openly “you must believe thusly” is itself proof that the Church does not require us to hold such a belief.

How can we be expected to be required to believe something which the Church never clearly articulates?

How can we be expected to give the assent of faith to a collection of euphemisms and poetic references? Can anyone explain that to me?

Well yes, indeed. I didn’t really want to blurt that out and be misunderstood but you have done so and put the problematic well. Though I am not so confident in my reflections just yet to assert this is the final silver bullet answer.

The Church seems to expend so much energy on this question dancing around the point.
I cannot make up my mind whether there is something very deep here that I am missing or it is just a Latin way of saying we got it wrong (ie the biological miracle not the fact that Mary knew no man) in the past without actually saying that.

I note that you still do hold to the old Eastern “logical” assertion (simply because of Genesis) that Mary had no intense labour pains. That is not miraculous of course though it is unusual. Personally I find that at least as tenuous as the other biological miracles once asserted. If we are not required to believe the biological miracles why not a fortiori absence of birth pains is also optional?

I believe we do have to hold to Mary not being subject to concupiscence…would you say this is de fide?
@don_ruggero, a lecturer in Mariology, may have some observations too.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The difficultly I see with this position is that if we do that then I no longer understand what the mystery (or even miracle) is that they refer to at the actual birth.

Well, it’s not difficult for me because I never thought that Jesus’ passing through the birth canal was anything other than a natural birth.

I suppose it doesn’t have to be mysterious anyway…as in, transubstantiation mysterious. Someone was lucid enough to point that out.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well yes, indeed. I didn’t really want to blurt that out and be misunderstood but you have done so and put the problematic well. Though I am not so confident in my reflections just yet to assert this is the final silver bullet answer.

I’m not looking for a silver bullet as much as I’m looking for reasoned discussion.

I’m not saying I absolutely believe it, nor that anyone else must. I’m just looking for conversation on the topic.

I certainly lean that way. I certainly would say that someone “may” believe it.

The Church seems to expend so much energy on this question dancing around the point.
I cannot make up my mind whether there is something very deep here that I am missing or it is just a Latin way of saying we got it wrong (ie the biological miracle not the fact that Mary knew no man) in the past without actually saying that.

This brings us back to what I mentioned earlier. The “we got it wrong” part is the misunderstanding that the female human body is defective or deficient. As you (and some but not all others here) understand, that’s based on Greek philosophy, and especially Aristotle. The Christian writings from past centuries were defending a false value. They felt they needed to defend it. Once we dismiss the false value, as St John Paul II certainly opens that door (more like smashes it to toothpicks) we can then move on to a better understanding of the overall Mystery.

I note that you still do hold to the old Eastern “logical” assertion (simply because of Genesis) that Mary had no intense labour pains.

I did address this earlier. I’m not trying to make any point with that, OTHER than to make it clear that I am not denying the Immaculate Conception and everything that means. I don’t think we’ve arrived at the point where we can discuss that just yet, on this forum. I must hold that she never experienced any of the punishment due to Original Sin, and would prefer to put any further discussion of that on-hold until we reach the point where we can discuss that without the distractions of having to go backward in the conversation.

That is not miraculous of course though it is unusual. Personally I find that at least as tenuous as the other biological miracles once asserted. If we are not required to believe the biological miracles why not a fortiori absence of birth pains is also optional?

I believe we do have to hold to Mary not being subject to concupiscence…would you say this is de fide?
@don_ruggero, a lecturer in Mariology, may have some observations too.

Yes, I would. Because that is a result of Original Sin, of which She is ever-free. Still, I would qualify that I mean it in the sense of being sinful. That part gets very subtle indeed, and I am absolutely certain that if I were to describe what I mean, the pharisees on CAF would be picking up stones to throw.

 

[De_Maria]

BlackFriar:

…
These are obviously delicate biological references.
As I say, the two Priests on the prior thread seem to say the Church does not teach anything specific re the biology.
…

That is actually an extremely profound statement. Yes, it is.

Thanks for mentioning that. I just now noticed this thread. I was ignoring it earlier because I thought someone couldn’t remember the 3rd Mystery of the Rosary and needed a little help.

You said that these are delicate biological references. Yes, they are exactly that, they are references. They are euphemisms.

Now, let’s ask ourselves a very simple question: if the Church teaches that the faithful must believe something, anything, as a matter of faith de fide, then it makes no sense that such a necessary belief would be expressed merely in euphemisms!

If we “must” believe something, does it not stand to reason that the Church would actually tell us, in no uncertain terms, what we must believe?

The fact that no one can actually point to a place where the Church says plainly and openly “you must believe thusly” is itself proof that the Church does not require us to hold such a belief.

How can we be expected to be required to believe something which the Church never clearly articulates?

How can we be expected to give the assent of faith to a collection of euphemisms and poetic references? Can anyone explain that to me?

The reason the Church does not go into detail is precisely because of the delicate nature of the descriptions necessary to do so. But the description that is actually used, the euphemisms, are clear enough for any reasonable person to understand. When the Church says that Mary is virgin, before, during and after the birth of our Lord, it means that her physical integrity was never broken. Not for conception and not for birth.

Think about it. If you are right and virginity only means that she did not have relations with a man prior to conception, why would the Catholic Church have to emphasize the fact of Mary’s virginity after birth, when she is already declared a virgin at the conception of our Lord by the Holy Spirit, in her womb? If by virginity the Church doesn’t mean physical integrity after birth, why say this?

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

Since no one, least of all myself, is even remotely suggesting that Mary’s Virginity is anything other than perpetual, I fail to see the relevance of your comments.

 

[De_Maria]

Since no one, least of all myself, is even remotely suggesting that Mary’s Virginity is anything other than perpetual,…

Well good then. I’m glad that’s cleared up.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well good then. I’m glad that’s cleared up.

It was NEVER in dispute.

 

[De_Maria]

… what then is the mystery that we honour by the teaching that Mary was a virgin before, during and after Jesus’s birth?

Is it that God became a man? (Which is a mystery but not a miracle in the strict theological meaning of that word).

Is it that Mary conceived knowing no man? (Which is a miracle but more to do with the Annunciation than the Nativity)?

It is that her virginity remained inviolate when she gave birth.

Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503:
“If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in 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.”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

On Tuesday, the Vatican announced Pope Francis’ appointment of two lay women – experts in bioethics and canon law – as the first two under-secretaries of the mega-dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.

This ^ happened four days ago. Four days, not four years, not four decades, not four centuries, four DAYS ago! For the Laity, Family and Life. Family, laity and life…I wonder what those things have to do with women

Anyway, given that ^, who here expects a balanced discussion about Mary’s labor? I don’t either. Men today are just as clueless about women as they were 2K years ago. I see a lot of confused men in this thread’s future.

 

[brian_custer]

mary gave birth to jesus; without conceiving from a human male

she was conceived of the Holy Spirit

why is this such a difficult issue?

oh yeah, i get it, there are troublemakers & trolls on the “new” CA board

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Mary is ever Virgin regardless of how Jesus physically emerged from the womb, because Mary did not have sex with a human man. I could not care less what was going on with Mary’s hymen and I don’t recall any section of the Baltimore Catechism discussing it, so I filed it under “stuff I don’t need to think about.”