G
graciew
Guest
" So I filed it under “stuff I don’t need to think about.”
This is just a fantastic file…I 'll borrow your idea…
This is just a fantastic file…I 'll borrow your idea…
Last edited:
- Status
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I have never heard of a woman losing her virginity by a man at the actual moment of birth so nothing mysterious or unusual in that methinks 
.
But it is a poetic way of saying she knew no man ever with the triple repetition/affirmation.
This is what FrDavid seems to be observing…
.But it is a poetic way of saying she knew no man ever with the triple repetition/affirmation.
This is what FrDavid seems to be observing…
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes.
The value of Virginity is a positive value in Christianity, one to be upheld. Not so far as to discount vocation to the married life, but still an important value.
So how did the early Christians determine a virgin?
#1 Is she married? If yes, we assume she is not a virgin.
(I won’t address it further than saying we know Mary and Joseph lived chastely. No need to discuss further.)
#2 Did she ever have a child? If yes, we know she is not a virgin. Let’s talk about that here.
#3 I will treat in the next post because of space.
It’s pretty obvious. If Ruth over there, the baker’s wife walks around the village for several months and she’s bigger every day, then one day she walks around carrying a baby, everyone knows she’s not a virgin. Giving birth is proof-positive that the woman is not a virgin.
Now, on the other hand, Mary, the wife of Joseph the Carpenter, is in a similar situation. Everyone knows she is with child. One day, she walks around with a baby boy in her arms. Wait. Stop. This is the one time when we say that she is most certainly still a virgin.
For every other woman in history, giving birth to a child is proof of lost virginity. For our Blessed Mother, that is not the case.
Therefore, the typical standard of “we know she isn’t a virgin because she gave birth” does not apply here. Now let’s affirm that and say that she remained a virgin even while giving birth.
We can say that. We can assert it. We can say that Christians must believe it. We can simply say that she remained a virgin during birth, in-spite of giving birth.
There is no reason why we can’t just leave it at that. There is no reason why it’s necessary for anyone to add more to that question I listed as #2.
We can simply say “unlike other women, the fact that our Blessed Mother gave birth does not indicate, does not prove, that she ceased to be a virgin.”
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
That’s because you won’t accept the Catholic Church’s understanding of virginity. By virginity, the Catholic Church does not mean merely that the Virgin Mary did not have relations with a man. Otherwise, why does the Church emphasize that she remained a virgin after birth.I have never heard of a woman losing her virginity by a man at the actual moment of birth so nothing mysterious or unusual in that methinks
And that is a miracle.
No. It’s a poetic way of saying that she remained inviolate, after giving birth. 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.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Some people ALSO prefer to deny that Jesus was a MAN. Which is why they choose to get rid of the Feast of the Circumcision.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Continuing from the last post
First of all, we have to understand the early Christian (indeed for most of the Christian era) misunderstanding that a female human is a defective or deficient version of a male human. Aristotle taught this. Greek philosophy taught this. The early Fathers based their Christian philosophy on that same Greek philosophy. It is articulated even in the Summa of St Thomas.
One of the conclusions drawn from that misunderstanding is that when a female human body functions naturally, something “wrong” is happening. We need look only at examples of men declaring women ritually impure because of their monthly function. Briefly, when a female body functions as a female body, that is an expression of the deficiency or impurity. Instead, to remain “pure” is synonymous with remaining impassive.
Again, back to #3.
If a woman claims to be a virgin, but someone doubts her, or challenges her, or even merely wants proof (such as eligibility to marry the king’s son) there is one way of proving her virginity (this, of course, assumes she is neither married nor already a mother). It must be proven, of course, because women are wont to lie about this sort of thing, and cannot be trusted (insert sarcasm face). At the risk of being too blunt, this means that the only way to prove a virgin is that a certain part is “intact” as we say.
Now, this “proof” is hardly a fail-proof test. That did not matter to the ancients. Any evidence of “change” or “movement” indicated a loss of virginity.
What we need to ask ourselves is this: what is the value of virginity? Is it a value because it expresses true moral purity? or is it a value because it expresses nothing more than a biological fact of “intact.”??? We are now able to split this question in a way that never occurred to the earlier Christians.
A woman is truly a virgin if she has never had relations with a man. Let’s leave it at that and not get into salacious details, please. No relations. Everyone knows what I mean.
There is no reason, again no reason at all, why we somehow “must” hold to the claim that a woman ceases to be a virgin because her female anatomy is ‘changed.’ To put that another way, it is not the observable change itself that causes a loss of virginity, but it is the act (or fact) of having relations.
I must pause here again, or I will run out of space.
#3 from my list of ways to prove a woman’s virginity
First of all, we have to understand the early Christian (indeed for most of the Christian era) misunderstanding that a female human is a defective or deficient version of a male human. Aristotle taught this. Greek philosophy taught this. The early Fathers based their Christian philosophy on that same Greek philosophy. It is articulated even in the Summa of St Thomas.
One of the conclusions drawn from that misunderstanding is that when a female human body functions naturally, something “wrong” is happening. We need look only at examples of men declaring women ritually impure because of their monthly function. Briefly, when a female body functions as a female body, that is an expression of the deficiency or impurity. Instead, to remain “pure” is synonymous with remaining impassive.
Again, back to #3.
If a woman claims to be a virgin, but someone doubts her, or challenges her, or even merely wants proof (such as eligibility to marry the king’s son) there is one way of proving her virginity (this, of course, assumes she is neither married nor already a mother). It must be proven, of course, because women are wont to lie about this sort of thing, and cannot be trusted (insert sarcasm face). At the risk of being too blunt, this means that the only way to prove a virgin is that a certain part is “intact” as we say.
Now, this “proof” is hardly a fail-proof test. That did not matter to the ancients. Any evidence of “change” or “movement” indicated a loss of virginity.
What we need to ask ourselves is this: what is the value of virginity? Is it a value because it expresses true moral purity? or is it a value because it expresses nothing more than a biological fact of “intact.”??? We are now able to split this question in a way that never occurred to the earlier Christians.
A woman is truly a virgin if she has never had relations with a man. Let’s leave it at that and not get into salacious details, please. No relations. Everyone knows what I mean.
There is no reason, again no reason at all, why we somehow “must” hold to the claim that a woman ceases to be a virgin because her female anatomy is ‘changed.’ To put that another way, it is not the observable change itself that causes a loss of virginity, but it is the act (or fact) of having relations.
I must pause here again, or I will run out of space.
Last edited:
P
PJM
Guest
Love it; BUT KINDA DEEP WATERS HERE,
We pray as we believe and believe as WE PRAY
The 3td JOYFUL Mystery is the Birth of Jesus Christ in and through the Holy Spirit and the ever-Virgin Mother Mary… which is both a Mystery AND a Miracle; neither by GOD’S intent are to logically comprehend in this lifetime. AMEN!
Isa 55:7-8
[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
It is NO coincidence that the practice of RELIGIONS is termed “FaitH”
Heb.11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.
James 1:3
AMEN,
God’s in Charge though many seem to want to challenge THAT TRUTH
God Bless you
Patrick
We pray as we believe and believe as WE PRAY
The 3td JOYFUL Mystery is the Birth of Jesus Christ in and through the Holy Spirit and the ever-Virgin Mother Mary… which is both a Mystery AND a Miracle; neither by GOD’S intent are to logically comprehend in this lifetime. AMEN!
Isa 55:7-8
[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
It is NO coincidence that the practice of RELIGIONS is termed “FaitH”
Heb.11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.
James 1:3
AMEN,
God’s in Charge though many seem to want to challenge THAT TRUTH
God Bless you
Patrick
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Now to continue.
We say in the Creeds and we affirm in our Christology that “Christ was born.”
This is no accident. It is absolutely necessary that we affirm that Christ was born. Some early Christian heresies either doubted or denied this, in one way or another. Some claimed that He did not truly exist on this earth, but was only an illusion of some sort. Later, some claimed that He was not God from the start, but that divinity descended upon Him at the baptism by John.
Without getting into an exhaustive summary of the early Christological debates, suffice to say that the Church concluded that the Incarnate Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus the Christ, became one-person-in-two-natures at the moment of His Conception (that is, the Annunciation by the Angel Gabriel and Mary’s “Let it be done to me”), not to be confused with the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Nine months later, Christ was born. The Savior Who is One-Person-in-Two-Natures was born.
God-made-man was born. He did not merely appear to be walking the earth. He did not appear out of the mist. He was not discovered in a basket floating down the river. He did not hatch from an egg. He was not delivered by a stork. He was born. He was both God and Man from Conception. We reject that a man was born, who later was united to God. We reject that a man was born but would later become God. We reject any other way of phrasing things or any other way of explaining things. Both Natures of Christ, hypostatically united and forever inseparable were born.
Continued…
F
Francis
Guest
Jesus came out of the womb of Mother Mary like a Light that’s how She is a perpetual virgin before during after the birth of Jesus
John 1:1-13 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own,and his own people did not accept him. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:1-13 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own,and his own people did not accept him. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
That’s just your personal understanding and that of many Eastern Church Fathers at a certain point of time in the long distant past.
I think we all understand that is your personal view of what the Church currently teaches,
However the Catechism does not explicitly state that.
Two priests here confirm that, one of them a retired professor who taught Mariology.
Your exegesis of this text is simplistic and missed the nuance.
As FrDavid suggests, the text here is saying that the “virginitas in partu” assertions by the old Eastern Fathers (as in “led (past tense) the Church to confess”) was inspired by the dogma of her perpetual virginity - and not really anything about passing on some secret knowledge of biological miracles.
You may not agree but it is a fair reading of this Magisterial text.
Therefore you are free to believe these old miracle stories as literal if you wish.
Other Catholics are free to see in these delicate Magisterial statements of more recent times as metaphoric poetry emphasising that Mary knew no man ever.
I am with the above priests who appear to hold the latter position themselves.
That is good enough company for me.
Obviously not for you.
Its a free world on this point.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
I side with the Popes.
- The definition of Pope St. Martin I at the Lateran Synod in 649 A.D., where he pronounced as an article of faith that:
- Pope St. Leo the Great in his famous Tome to Flavian makes clear that Mary’s physical virginity was protected in the process of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ:
- Cum quorumdam hominum (August 7, 1555), Pope Paul IV admonished all those who deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary “did not retain her virginity intact before the birth, in the birth, and perpetually after the birth.”
B
BlackFriar
Guest
And yet Popes of recent times do not interpret them as you do.
The statements of recent Popes and Councils apply just as much to them as to the ancient Fathers from what I can see.
“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church [of old] to confess …”
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
Unless you can prove that they deny or reject it, you have nothing to stand on.
That confirms the Papal Teachings which I’ve posted. It does not disagree with nor contradict them.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I simply better interpreted the same recent Magisterial statement you gave that allegedly supported your view.BlackFriar:
Unless you can prove that they deny or reject it, you have nothing to stand on.
If you require more proof then the same also holds for you to demonstrate your interpretation of this statement is more objective.
Going back to dead Popes and past statements that these more recent statement interpret hardly does that.
It simply continues to beg the question.
Therefore, if two experienced and knowledgable priests here can interpret these more recent Magisterial statements as I have indicated…then clearly your contrary interpretation is mistaken or at least merely one of two currently acceptable positions - like the teaching on the death of Mary…and waning at that.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
I’ve provided the proof backed up by Papal Teaching. You’ve provided your arguments based upon the opinion of two priests. You also said:
But apparently, you don’t consider it free. Otherwise, you would have let it go by now.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
We clearly interpret the same recent magisterial statement completely differently.
As this statement itself interprets past teaching it is irrelevant bringing up that past teaching to support your interpretation.
This is basic logic.
If you require me to provide more objective evidence than the exegesis already provided by myself and, I believe, two other experienced priests, then I ask you to do the same.
Going into the past to do this is illogical.
It all rests on who has the more objective interpretation of VaticanII and recent Magisterial statements.
If you ask for more “proof” for my interpretation then you must face the same judgement also.
Currently I am comfortable, I believe, with the backing of @FrDavid and @Don_Ruggero and Cardinal Muller.
You as yet have nothing further than more of the past - which begs the very question.
D
De_Maria
Guest
In your opinion. I think the proof I’ve provided stands on its own merits.
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?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Not even close.
Quite frankly, your reading of the texts borders on the superstitious. 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. You seem to think that there is some magical or supernatural attachment to individual sentence clauses which make them binding on Christian faithful.
You have shown that you are either incapable or unwilling to read a text within its proper context.
First, you take a sentence entirely out of its proper context, with no regard whatsoever for discerning the purpose of the text. You ignore the simple fact that a sentence must be read in the light of whatever theological value or truth is being upheld by that sentence. For example, before quoting the words of an ecumenical Council, a theologian would first ask the questions “what was the purpose of this council? Why was it convened? What question was it resolving? or what heresy was it disputing?” That’s step 1. You do not even bother with step 1.
Then you take an individual clause of that sentence. Again, you ignore any context. What you use is not even the primary clause of the sentence but subordinate; a merely secondary or supporting clause.
The next step is that you assign a meaning to the clause which is different from the plain meaning of the words.
You then posit here that your conclusion is somehow the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church.
All the while, you ignore the simple logical reality that words have definitions.
No, you have not provided proof of anything. Not even close.
Last edited:
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You have, @BlackFriar, the words of His Eminence, Cardinal Müller. In contrast to Maria, His Eminence is one of the greatest theological minds in the contemporary Church.
I have nothing more to say on this matter of virginitas in partu on this forum, except that I have encountered this woman, Maria, in other threads. After the thread which had to be closed, with the lurid images and truly disturbing posts, it is as a result of those that I simply skip over anything she posts the moment I see her name.
Based moreover on the content of those posts in those threads, which went beyond the images, her problem seems to transcend theological confusion, and that contributes to my decision.
Further contribution on my part would only exacerbate the situation meaninglessly to the other readers and clearly, if she is not listening to and yielding to the Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then truly that simply speaks volumes.
I have nothing more to say on this matter of virginitas in partu on this forum, except that I have encountered this woman, Maria, in other threads. After the thread which had to be closed, with the lurid images and truly disturbing posts, it is as a result of those that I simply skip over anything she posts the moment I see her name.
Based moreover on the content of those posts in those threads, which went beyond the images, her problem seems to transcend theological confusion, and that contributes to my decision.
Further contribution on my part would only exacerbate the situation meaninglessly to the other readers and clearly, if she is not listening to and yielding to the Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, then truly that simply speaks volumes.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Since I’m a man who calls himself, De Maria, I think you must have me confused with someone else.
And what did he say? Let’s see if you’re listening to him.
- Status