What is the mystery in the Third Joyful Mystery?

[brian_custer]

i want to be very respectful father what are we discussing? the minutiae of Jesus’ delivery on planet earth or the greater theological issues regarding BVM and her physiological status as a “virgin”?

 

[Reuben_J]

Is that the Magisterium or the teaching of the Pope only? I am open to either one but personally I don’t care. The fact that the Lord was born of a virgin (“for how can it be since I know a man not”) is sufficient for me.

 

[BlackFriar]

You may accept the legends as contemporary Church Teaching regards them as optional. If some of the ancient fathers/Councils, if they were speaking literally (rather than poetically), were not speaking infallibly.

Your interpretation that contemporary Church Teaching says it is compulsory is in error.

That is the position, as I understand it, of Cardinal Muller, FrDavid and DonRuggero, a Mariologist.

Mary’s never knowing a man does not require biological miracles to be true, nor does God need to prove this to Man.

Its a no brainer whom I go with when you disagree with them.
Its not a complicated position we hold, though you continuously seem unable to grasp it.

Nothing more to say.

 

[LittleWay16]

Have you actually read the OP and the first few posts? The OP explicitly states that this is based off the other thread. Also, Father was not the one who brought back the “anatomy” topic first. I wouldn’t be so quick to accuse him of anything. He has been remarkably patient with some of these posters.

 

[Kei]

Well no, Reuben, the “test” is fallible. Someone who is a virgin can have it broken. However, the test is accurate enough to have been used in Biblical times.
I see no reason for it to break. It adds to the meaning of “perpetual Virginity”, I mean I don’t see why not. With all the miracles associated with Christ’s birth I really don’t see what the point of denying it is.

I wouldn’t wish any such test to be done our Lady, but then again I wouldn’t wish suffering on Our Lord.
But I can’t see no one being suspicious and wanting to test the virginity of someone who, if the traditions are true (and I believe they are) had a vow of virginity if she suddenly got pregnant. Call me skeptical, but I don’t see that they would just believe the true story.
In fact, they made fun of our belief in the Virgin birth by saying Mary had (if you have pious eyes do not read further if you cannot handle blasphemy) “relations” with a Roman soldier and so called our Lord a…well, you know the word for an “illegitimate” child.
So I don’t see why in such an age they wouldn’t be skeptical of the true story.

Earlier the priest said I was making an appeal to emotion. This is a misunderstanding, my point was that in these current days we try to minimize the miraculous, try to find naturalistic explanations for everything, and when there is a miracle try to limit it the most reasonably possible. I was saying we need less of this and more of faith in God who does work many miracles throughout the life of the Church. I wasn’t trying to be emotional, but make a point about returning to a time of great faith in the personal God who is and who does.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Have you actually read the OP and the first few posts? The OP explicitly states that this is based off the other thread. Also, Father was not the one who brought back the “anatomy” topic first. I wouldn’t be so quick to accuse him of anything. He has been remarkably patient with some of these posters.

With all due respect. I read and followed the OP post that was BASED off another thread. I was willing to offer much more on the Third Joyful Mystery pertaining to the Blessed Virgin Mary on how the Virginity is based off Prophetic literature, fulfilled from Luke’s Gospel and how the ancient Hebrews based this Virginity and it is nothing on how it is presented here. But thank you for your response.
In addition, I have bowed out of this thread, and do not agree with one view that pretends to dominate a subject labeled “What is the mystery in the third Joyful Mystery”.

As far as Fr. being remarkably patient with SOME posters is in the eye of the beholder. I sure like his charity addressed to me personally here, you can be the judge.

OriginalGabrielof12:
Very well, if your going to take the position of the OP.

Please allow me to redirect here;

Please explain to me,
What is the mystery in the Third Joyful Mystery?

FrDavid9611h
If we were in the same room, I would shout at you “Shut up. Sit down. And Listen.”

You are so darned determined to think one thing that you won’t give anyone a chance to explain to you what is happening here.

.Peace be with you

 

[De_Maria]

Nothing more to say.

You keep saying that and yet, here we are.

You may accept the legends as contemporary Church Teaching regards them as optional.

The Teachings of the Catholic Church don’t change. And I consider it disparaging of you to call any Teaching of the Catholic Church, a legend. It’s amazing to me, that I, a layman, is the only one bringing up the insolent manner with which you refer to Catholic Church Teaching.

If some of the ancient fathers/Councils, if they were speaking literally (rather than poetically), were not speaking infallibly.

On the contrary, those who claim that Mary’s virginity while giving birth is merely a reference to moral virginity, are speaking blasphemously. As though it were possible for our Lady to commit a sex act in the course of giving birth.

Your interpretation that contemporary Church Teaching says it is compulsory is in error.

The Magisterial Teaching has not changed. Those who deny the Magisterial Teaching are in error.

That is the position, as I understand it, of Cardinal Muller, FrDavid and DonRuggero, a Mariologist.

Neither you, nor Cardinal Muller, nor FrDavid, nor DonRuggero form an infallible quorum nor are you infallible individually. I’ll side with the infallible Magisterium.

Mary’s never knowing a man does not require biological miracles to be true, nor does God need to prove this to Man.

God needs nothing. So that’s besides the point. And Mary’s never knowing a man is also besides the point. The miracle is, as the Catholic Church Teaches, that Mary remained inviolate during birth. That remains true, whether you believe it or not.

Its a no brainer whom I go with when you disagree with them.
Its not a complicated position we hold, though you continuously seem unable to grasp it.

I never said it was a complicated position. I merely said that I adamantly disagree with your position. And the more insolently and derisively you speak with reference to Catholic Teaching, the more convinced I am that you are wrong.

I am quite surprised though, that you and the other two are so obsessed with making me change my mind. I never realized that I was that important.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Does anyone here remember the stuff they taught in/from the Baltimore Catechism?

 

[BlackFriar]

Neither you, nor Cardinal Muller, nor FrDavid, nor DonRuggero form an infallible quorum nor are you infallible individually. I’ll side with the infallible Magisterium.

Indeed, no one is infallible when interpreting a contemporary Magisterial statement - including yourself.
You do not have a direct mind-meld with the contemporary Magisterium.

As I say, if trained priests and experts advise that the correct understanding of the contemporary Magisterium is that belief in the stories and assertions of old is optional then I am comfortable in my position and it is far more likely to be correct than the interpretation of a vocal layman with no formal theological training or Mariological credentials whatsoever.

And I consider it disparaging of you to call any Teaching of the Catholic Church, a legend. It’s amazing to me, that I, a layman, is the only one bringing up the insolent manner with which you refer to Catholic Church Teaching.

You really need to lay that charge at Cardinal Muller and Mariologist @Don_Ruggero I suggest.
Though a humble person might suspect there was a chance they were mistaken in their views.

On the contrary, those who claim that Mary’s virginity while giving birth is merely a reference to moral virginity, are speaking blasphemously.

It well appears there is only one definition of virginity that the contemporary Magisterium cares about or can speak infallibly about - that Mary knew no man ever.

And the more insolently and derisively you speak with reference to Catholic Teaching

Please observe personal respect on this Christian forum, play the ball not the man. We do the same with you, extreme and erroneous though we believe your own understanding of contemporary Church Teaching be.

I am quite surprised though, that you and the other two are so obsessed with making me change my mind. I never realized that I was that important

You misunderstand. We are not wanting to change your mind. Its not about you at all.
We are simply balancing your extreme and erroneous views so that those on a truly Catholic forum who want to understand the true contemporary teaching receive a balanced view. You are the only one here wanting to force people from what I can see. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of what constitutes Church teaching you label as insolent in manner, derisive, obsessed, disparaging, speaking blasphemously.

This seems like demonising, potty mouth stuff. This isn’t the way to convince intelligent open minded persons seeking the truth. You are really the only one here who seems to be doing any “forcing” of a mind change by such accusations.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Kei. First of all I like to say that I am alright with miracle. And if the Blessed Mother did not suffer external effect to her virginity, then all good.

What I was saying, perhaps as a medical person, I do not agree on the premise that virginity depends on the physical. In other word, physical attribute to virginity is not a proof of a miracle. Do you see it? How about if another woman giving birth and having her virginity intact, would that nullify the virgin birth of the Lord because then it was not a miracle anymore or if it was, then it was not unique.

More importantly though, is this a Magisterial teaching, like Immaculate Conception is? You can have good theological discourse but is it being declared say, at the level of a Magisterial teaching?

If you are trying to address accusation on the Blessed Mother virginity by non-Catholics, then all the more that we use official Church’s teaching to explain to them.

Resorting to biological proof would certainly lead to more ridicule, as we can see even a frank description of the anatomy here would seem inappropriate for the Blessed Mother.

 

[De_Maria]

You do not have a direct mind-meld with the contemporary Magisterium.

I don’t need one. The contemporary Magisterium hardly needs interpretation. Here it is again.

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

I know the only way you think you can save face is by obsessing on me and thus changing the subject. But there it is. A reasonable man can see that the modern Magisterium still Teaches the exact, same thing as the Ancient Magisterium.

In 649, the Lateran Council under Pope Saint Martin I declared: “If anyone does not, in accord with the Holy Fathers, acknowledge the Holy, Ever-Virgin and Immaculate Mary as really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed conceived, by the Holy Spirit of God, Jesus the Word Himself, Who before all time was born of God the Father, and with integrity brought Him forth (incorruptibly bore Him), and after His Birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.”
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=611

 

[TheLittleLady]

That God became man and was born as a tiny baby.

 

[De_Maria]

More importantly though, is this a Magisterial teaching, like Immaculate Conception is? You can have good theological discourse but is it being declared say, at the level of a Magisterial teaching?

I think so. This article by Dave Armstrong lays out all the evidence which supports that conclusion. He even admits that he once held the contrary opinion. Here’s an excerpt:

“Ever-Virgin” means conception while remaining a virgin (Virgin Birth), virginity during childbirth, and perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus (no siblings of Jesus or sexual activity).The Church has interpreted Mary’s virginity during the birth (in partu) as an inviolability of the hymen; in other words, it was a physically miraculous birth rather than a natural one. This, too, is a dogma of the Catholic Church.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davear...nding-catholic-dogma.html#K02Jj6BVkJfXYb8c.99

 

[Reuben_J]

Okay, I am not going to argue that with you. Perhaps I am ignorant on this information and it being an infallible teaching. I am quite lazy at this moment, but is that included in the Catechism of the Catholicism Church, which is probably a first course of references on Catholic doctrines for many Catholics?

Again, arguing on the physical, there would probably doctors who would tell you that part of the anatomy is rather elastic or stretchable, and though rare, there would be a situation that it can survive, sort of, childbirth. And as I mentionned earlier, a part of the post which I deleted, childbirth pain is actually in the perineal tearing rather than hymen.

Lastly, if really it is like Dave Amstrong said, then, all good.

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t need one. The contemporary Magisterium hardly needs interpretation. Here it is again.

You are just going around in circles DM.
It has already been demonstrated to you that the text you quote has a reading other than yours.

You have this utter conviction that simply because you believe you rightly read and understand past and present Magisterial statements that you yourself infallibly get them right and cannot be in error.

Yet most of us realise by age 7 or so that just because we are self-convinced re our own intellect and perceptions…that doesn’t mean we cannot also be quite mistaken and in error at the same time.
Most of us learn to recognise the subtle little flags that pop up around us when we walk around with a “kick me” notice stuck on our backs at school. Some never do.

There is only one other well known US public figure of recent times I am aware of who shares a similar outlook re his own views against the world.

So there really is no point trying to discuss further with you on this teaching if you are so confident that you, an untrained layman, have perfect apprehension of Magisterial teaching on all occasions simply because you think so… and in the face of overwhelming objective evidence that men wiser, more experienced, far better trained and qualified than you suggest there is a different reading.

 

[De_Maria]

You are just going around in circles DM.

You keep trying to make this about me? Why?

So there really is no point trying to discuss further with you on this teaching if you are so confident that you, an untrained layman,…

Right is right and wrong is wrong. That goes for anyone. Including you.

Anyway, this article is really thorough. You ought to read it. It’s written by a trained layman.

 

[FrDavid96]

i want to be very respectful father what are we discussing? the minutiae of Jesus’ delivery on planet earth or the greater theological issues regarding BVM and her physiological status as a “virgin”?

Both actually. The second is a part of the first.

Hi Kei. First of all I like to say that I am alright with miracle. And if the Blessed Mother did not suffer external effect to her virginity, then all good.

What I was saying, perhaps as a medical person, I do not agree on the premise that virginity depends on the physical. In other word, physical attribute to virginity is not a proof of a miracle. Do you see it?

That is more-or-less where I’m going here. Only I need to lay the theological foundation before skipping to the conclusion.

How about if another woman giving birth and having her virginity intact, would that nullify the virgin birth of the Lord because then it was not a miracle anymore or if it was, then it was not unique.

Yes, that’s another good point, one that hasn’t been mentioned yet.

More importantly though, is this a Magisterial teaching, like Immaculate Conception is? You can have good theological discourse but is it being declared say, at the level of a Magisterial teaching?

This is an emphatic NO.

The reason for the emphasis is that a particular user has decided to appoint herself as the doctrine police. Ironically, the Catholic Church has such a “doctrine police” called the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (which used to be called the office of the Inquisition) The (recently term-expired) Cardinal Prefect of that Congregation has said that it is NOT magisterial teaching. This particular CAF user thinks she knows better and even cites…wait for it…here it comes…articles on the internet to support that position. That’s right. The Cardinal appointed by the Pope to be the chief judge and inquisitor of Catholic Doctrine is wrong because of what she reads on the internet.

In any case, the simple fact is that the Church has never defined it as doctrine, and never required anyone to believe it. This is still true, independent of whether or not the Cardinal ever said anything specific about the matter.

If you are trying to address accusation on the Blessed Mother virginity by non-Catholics, then all the more that we use official Church’s teaching to explain to them.

No. Just addressing Catholic theology. At least some of us are trying to use theological methods.

Resorting to biological proof would certainly lead to more ridicule, as we can see even a frank description of the anatomy here would seem inappropriate for the Blessed Mother.

That makes conversation sometimes difficult. Keeping it delicate. I think it’s possible to have a reasoned conversation without being disrespectful. After all, one should only need to say a certain thing one time, and after that, everyone knows what is meant.