Yes, it's another Mary question

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.R
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

J.R

Guest
Brothers and sisters,
I had a question posed to me by a Protestant friend. His preacher during their Christmas whorship service stated that Catholics believe (don’t you like it when non-catholics tell others what Catholics believe) Jesus did not pass through Marys vagina at his birth. He just appeared in her arms and thats how us Catholics support her perpetual virginity.
I’m aware and have read the “Protoevangelium of James”, but can anyone here help me explain what Catholics believe happened during Jesus’ birth. The catechism does not address this. Thank you and God bless all here.
 
J.R said:
Brothers and sisters,
I had a question posed to me by a Protestant friend. His preacher during their Christmas whorship service stated that Catholics believe (don’t you like it when non-catholics tell others what Catholics believe) Jesus did not pass through Marys vagina at his birth. He just appeared in her arms and thats how us Catholics support her perpetual virginity.
I’m aware and have read the “Protoevangelium of James”, but can anyone here help me explain what Catholics believe happened during Jesus’ birth. The catechism does not address this. Thank you and God bless all here.
Click to expand...
I believe you’ve hit upon the key there. Ask your friend to show you where this belief is required of Catholics. Ask him to ask his preacher for the same. The burden of proof rests upon the one making the claim, it is not upon you to “prove a negative”.

AFAIK, the Church is silent in regard to precisely *how *Mary’s virginity was maintained before, during, and after the birth of our Lord, and does not require the belief that it was accomplished in a specific way – Only that it was and is maintained.

tee
 
JR, Do you make it a habit of calling Worship services that criticize (in error or not) aspects of Mariology as ‘Whorships’?

Or was that rather just a convenient typo?
 
I’ve alway thought that virginity has to do with not having had sexual intercourse. A female can be born with no Hyman or loose it in some other innocent way and remain a virgin. A man likewise maintains his virginity by obstaining from sexual intercourse. Jesus was a Virgin. Giving birth is not an act of sexual intercourse so giving birth would not have effected Mary’s virginity in any way.
 
If ‘virgin’ specifically means one who has not had sex, why would Jesus passing through the birth-canal pose a problem for Mary’s virginity?

rusty
 
Is it John Chrysostom who first speculated that Jesus was born of Mary like light passing through glass? It’s in the ECFs someplace, and a lot of people may believe it but the Church is less interested in the technical matter of Mary’s virginity than in the theological matter.
 
When the bible calls Jesus the firstborn of Mary, it does not mean that there was a second born. Firstborn was a word used to refer to the child who opened his mother’s womb. Therefore, i think it very likely that Jesus was physically born the same way non-divine babies are, minus the birth pains. If He didn’t open her womb, how is He truly “born” of a virgin?
 
J.R said:
Brothers and sisters,
I had a question posed to me by a Protestant friend. His preacher during their Christmas whorship service stated that Catholics believe (don’t you like it when non-catholics tell others what Catholics believe) Jesus did not pass through Marys vagina at his birth. He just appeared in her arms and thats how us Catholics support her perpetual virginity.
I’m aware and have read the “Protoevangelium of James”, but can anyone here help me explain what Catholics believe happened during Jesus’ birth. The catechism does not address this. Thank you and God bless all here.
Click to expand...
My question is why would this come up in a worship service at all.
 
Baraq said:
JR, Do you make it a habit of calling Worship services that criticize (in error or not) aspects of Mariology as ‘Whorships’?

Or was that rather just a convenient typo?
Click to expand...
Baraq, I would expect to be given the benefit of doubt in a forum such as this. It was a typo I can most asure you. To even think that I have a habit as you put it, that would reqiure you checking some of my past posts. Did you bother to do that? I don’t think so.
 
Isn’t it sad? :rolleyes: On Christmas day, the preacher was worried about telling other belief was wrong. He could’ve just focused on the celebration of the birth of Jesus with all fellow Christians.
 
Baraq said:
JR, Do you make it a habit of calling Worship services that criticize (in error or not) aspects of Mariology as ‘Whorships’?

Or was that rather just a convenient typo?
Click to expand...
Not very kind. I am reasonably certain it was a typo. J.R. is generally quite charitable. Like me and many many others, he makes his share of typos.
 
Here are the definitions listed in the dictionary for the word “virgin”.

noun 1. a person who has never had sexual intercourse.
2. an unmarried girl or woman.
3. Ecclesiastical. an unmarried, religious woman, esp. a saint.
4. the Virgin, Mary, the mother of Christ.
5. Informal. any person who is uninitiated, uninformed, or the like: He’s still a virgin as far as hard work is concerned.
6. a female animal that has never copulated.
7. an unfertilized insect.
8. (initial capital letter) Astronomy, Astrology. the constellation or sign of Virgo.
–adjective 9. being a virgin: a virgin martyr.
10. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a virgin: virgin modesty.
11. pure; unsullied; undefiled: virgin snow.
12. first: the senator’s virgin speech.
13. without admixture, alloy, or modification: virgin gold.
14. not previously exploited, cultivated, tapped, or used: virgin timberlands; virgin wool.
15. without experience of; not previously exposed to: a mind virgin to such sorrows.
16. Informal. being a mixed drink resembling a specific cocktail but made without any alcoholic ingredient: a virgin piña colada.
17. Zoology. not fertilized.
18. (of a metal) made directly from ore by smelting, rather than from scrap.
19. noting the oil obtained, as from olives, by the first pressing without the application of heat.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME virgine < AF, OF < L virgin-, s. of virgō maiden, virgin]

Note: it does not say anything about giving birth. Of course, under normal circumstances one would have to have intercourse to give birth. And, of course, we know that is not the case with Mary (I believe most Christians will agree with this) Her perpetual virginity has nothing to do with giving birth to Jesus or thus, ahem, her hyman being severed. It rests on the fact that she remained chaste for her entire life.

I have never in my life heard of the so called belief that He just popped into her arms. That is not being “born of a woman” as has been stated. Besides, even if the severing of the hyman were important, we are talking about the miraculous birth of Christ, I’m sure God could have made it possible for the hyman to remain in tact.

PS. The OP’s friend should run, not walk, from that Church. The pastor has no integrity, IMO.
 
From everything I have read, Catholic teaching is that Mary was a perpetual virgin, after the Lord’s birth as before. There is a tradition that she felt no birth pains. Beyond this, there is no reason to think that the birth was out of the ordinary.

We must remember that she was giving birth to (creating, as it were) her own creator. Jesus was able to cure lepers, restore sight to the blind and raise the dead. A woman who had an issue for many years simply touched his robe and was healed. I think God is powerful enough to maintain his earthly Mother’s virginity. How He did that is one of the mysteries of the Faith.

(Something to meditate on the next time you pray the Joyful Mysteries of the Rosary.)
 
J.R said:
Brothers and sisters,
I had a question posed to me by a Protestant friend. His preacher during their Christmas whorship service stated that Catholics believe (don’t you like it when non-catholics tell others what Catholics believe) Jesus did not pass through Marys vagina at his birth. He just appeared in her arms and thats how us Catholics support her perpetual virginity.
I’m aware and have read the “Protoevangelium of James”, but can anyone here help me explain what Catholics believe happened during Jesus’ birth. The catechism does not address this. Thank you and God bless all here.
Click to expand...
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 her hymen, and accordingly, and consequently also without pains. Source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott
 
rpp said:
From everything I have read, Catholic teaching is that Mary was a perpetual virgin, after the Lord’s birth as before. There is a tradition that she felt no birth pains. Beyond this, there is no reason to think that the birth was out of the ordinary…
Click to expand...
Genesis contains a passage that woman was given pain in child birth as punishment for sin (original sin) Catholics know Mary was without the stain of original sin, thus she did not have punishment of original sin, which was a painful child birth.

J.R.
Please send a copy of the Catechism to the preacher with a note saying please at least misinterpret what is written.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Genesis contains a passage that woman was given pain in child birth as punishment for sin (original sin) Catholics know Mary was without the stain of original sin, thus she did not have punishment of original sin, which was a painful child birth.

J.R.
Please send a copy of the Catechism to the preacher with a note saying please at least misinterpret what is written.
Click to expand...
Aso see post #15 - Church Dogma
 
Revelation 12:2?

She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Genesis contains a passage that woman was given pain in child birth as punishment for sin (original sin) Catholics know Mary was without the stain of original sin, thus she did not have punishment of original sin, which was a painful child birth.

J.R.
Please send a copy of the Catechism to the preacher with a note saying please at least misinterpret what is written.
Click to expand...
Though translations vary, the passage in Genesis you refer to says “I will *greatly multiply *your pain in childbearing;”. So, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was originally intended that birth would be completely pain free. This is just an opinion, of course, of what this passage means. There is not, to my knowledge an official teaching on the matter.
Though I realize that early traditions say Mary had a painless birth, the wording in Genesis (IMO) doesn’t fully support that. Combined with the passage in Revelation about the woman “crying out in birth pangs” I would say that there was some pain involved. Of course, the “woman” in Revelation is greatly disputed… I personally feel that she is representative of more than one thing. Furthermore, the “birth pangs” in Revelation may refer to another type of pain altogether. Still, it is easier to defend the “woman” in Revelation representing Mary if one concedes that Mary would have experienced some birth pain.
 
I think you are getting a bit off topic now. Pain does not always accompany childbirth. I had 4 kids and not a whit of pain, and no medication either btw. I think the real issue is how they determined virginity. I would venture that the hymen being in tact would be the only way to prove virginity. This doesn’t mean necessarily that the hymen was not ruptured during child birth either. It could have been and God could have repaired it because afterall, he is God. But then it is also possible that John Chrysostom’s theory is correct… because God can do that too. Faith is so much more important than the details here!

The sad part of this is that this was the Christmas service… hmm, I sit here conjuring up images of young children asking mommy and daddy what a vagina is. Wow I think I would be so unhappy with the preacher if I was in that congregation when my kids were small.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top