FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Gerhard Müller is indeed a heretic, and blasphemer
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
I'm assuming that physiological rupture means damage to the hymen. Would it then be possible to believe that Christ past normally through the birth canal, but without causing any rupture of the hymen?
No, I think such speculation is not something which fits with the sensus fidelium.

Read St. Thomas, and note how delicate he is. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm

In sum, this is a mystery, and is miraculous at every stage.  That's what we need to know.
(07-10-2012, 08:48 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]No, I think such speculation is not something which fits with the sensus fidelium.

Read St. Thomas, and note how delicate he is. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm

In sum, this is a mystery, and is miraculous at every stage.  That's what we need to know.

I mentioned this earlier in some other thread.  The Virgin Birth was miraculous.  Jesus passed through fro His mother's womb into the world.  There was no birth canal type of delivery, nor labor pains (like Zefferelli's movie where he had Mary scream in pain giving birth, what an insult!), the latter is the result of Original Sin.  The Body of Jesus was already glorious at birth and it wasn't at the Resurrection that It was made glorious.  As Jesus passed through the door of the room where the Apostles were hiding out, so did He passed through His mother in the Virgin Birth.
Here's where I posted Ott:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33762953

As for the Church's teaching, we are to hold that our Lady was, is, and will always be a virgin, We hold that in birth her virginity was not affected as well. So whatever is essential to "virginity" our Lady always possessed it and never lost it. But that's the debate -- what is essential to her virginity. There are no clear teachings on how Jesus was born. Some have posited theories, which Ott explains. Tied to this are the ideas that the hymen was not affected (which we know now is not a true sign of virginity), Jesus did not pass through the birth canal (probably held due to the last assertion, they seem mutually grounded), or she experienced birth pains (related to the curse of Eve, though our Lady was not immune from undergoing suffering). All these theories can be debated, and do not need to be held. As has already been explained, the integrity of the dogma does not require as of current understanding a teaching on the physical "how". The current consensus seems to be what Ott mentions, which is no sexual relations, and no seed for conception. On these facts alone we'd exhibit caution when handing out judgements. But like Al Gore on global warming ("the science is decided"), we take things open to discussion and end debate with "case closed" pronouncements when there is no evidence of case closed. But we should also not scorn what some theologians have taught and take all into account. It may well be, though, that these peculiarities will not be held in the future. Furthermore, there is a dignity to natural childbirth which does not degrade virginity as currently understood, nor the state of being free from original sin, nor her being free from concupiscence. As the thread goes on I think it is even more clear that Mr Lane was rash in his judgement because of lack of evidence to support his case for his argument, and against the Bishops one quote. I wonder if he'll pull back and retract, and instead do what others have either seek clarification, or simply trust that the Pope promoted someone orthodox.
Ludwig Van Ott:

Quote: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 the hymen, and consequently also without pains (cf. S. th. III 28, 2).

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act ("sex-act virginity") and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed ("seed-act virginity") (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seems to belong to complete natural motherhood. It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation. Holy Writ attests Mary's active role in the act of birth (Mt. 1:25 ; Luke 2:7 : "She brought forth") which does not seem to indicate a miraculous process.

But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth. However, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view. It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.

See, that makes a lot more sense to me. The idea that the breaking of Our Lady's hymen somehow detracts from her status as "inviolate" seems to rest on an archaic idea that the intact hymen signifies virginity. Of course, now, we know that that's not the case.

Secondly the beautiful thing about Christianity, for me at least, is that the divine comes down to the human. God participates in human realities to elevate us up to the divine. JayneK mentioned this earlier in the thread and spoke about how comforting it was to think of Our Lady as experiencing the same reality that Jayne experienced during her pregnancy. The idea that Christ passed from Our Lady like "light through glass" doesn't really fit with the entire concept of Christ's solidarity with the human race, becoming "like us in all things but sin". I've never heard that a physiologically intact and painless birth was a dogma before, and it doesn't make much sense to me, but if that is indeed the Church's teaching I submit to it. Judging from the contradictory references thrown around on this thread though it doesn't appear to be a settled question.
Also it could be one and not the other. It could be a vaginal birth without pain. Also our Lord was like us in all ways except sin. Could there not be a "redemption" of childbirth? Certainly a possibility. Also not all women weep and wail. My wife with our second child experienced practically no pain, due to meditation. There may well have been a misunderstanding about the science of the time. Really, there were pretty wacky ideas about women, conception, and childbirth up to pretty recent. I am not saying that is at play here, but it could be that one thought a child passing through the birth canal had "pleasurable" connotation, or aroused lust. Who knows. It should be understood too that our Lady was purified like any other woman after birth (Mar 25), even if only out of obedience.
(07-10-2012, 11:05 AM)Vincentius Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 08:48 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]No, I think such speculation is not something which fits with the sensus fidelium.

Read St. Thomas, and note how delicate he is. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm

In sum, this is a mystery, and is miraculous at every stage.  That's what we need to know.

I mentioned this earlier in some other thread.  The Virgin Birth was miraculous.  Jesus passed through fro His mother's womb into the world.  There was no birth canal type of delivery, nor labor pains (like Zefferelli's movie where he had Mary scream in pain giving birth, what an insult!), the latter is the result of Original Sin.  The Body of Jesus was already glorious at birth and it wasn't at the Resurrection that It was made glorious.   As Jesus passed through the door of the room where the Apostles were hiding out, so did He passed through His mother in the Virgin Birth.

Yes, I believe that is correct and all one needs to know. I once heard a guy on Relevant Radio who is a sometimes host of "As Your Father". Some Msgr. who is in charge of a seminary. He was talking about a statue they have on campus with an exhausted Virgin Mary holding on to the Christ Child. It did not sound good and I had to turn off the radio in the car. He is a convert from Lutheranism as far as I can remember.

Real dud anyway.

Would you please stop this?  Just stop.  Pray for the grace of faith.  It's been demonstrated to you repeatedly now that this teaching is de fide.  If you reject one dogma, you do not have the Catholic faith.  You're in a grave situation and you are trying to bring others down with you.  Stop now.

(07-10-2012, 12:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Also it could be one and not the other. It could be a vaginal birth without pain. Also our Lord was like us in all ways except sin. Could there not be a "redemption" of childbirth? Certainly a possibility. Also not all women weep and wail. My wife with our second child experienced practically no pain, due to meditation. There may well have been a misunderstanding about the science of the time. Really, there were pretty wacky ideas about women, conception, and childbirth up to pretty recent. I am not saying that is at play here, but it could be that one thought a child passing through the birth canal had "pleasurable" connotation, or aroused lust. Who knows. It should be understood too that our Lady was purified like any other woman after birth (Mar 25), even if only out of obedience.
(07-10-2012, 11:05 AM)Vincentius Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-10-2012, 08:48 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]No, I think such speculation is not something which fits with the sensus fidelium.

Read St. Thomas, and note how delicate he is. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm

In sum, this is a mystery, and is miraculous at every stage.  That's what we need to know.

I mentioned this earlier in some other thread.  The Virgin Birth was miraculous.  Jesus passed through fro His mother's womb into the world.  There was no birth canal type of delivery, nor labor pains (like Zefferelli's movie where he had Mary scream in pain giving birth, what an insult!), the latter is the result of Original Sin.  The Body of Jesus was already glorious at birth and it wasn't at the Resurrection that It was made glorious.   As Jesus passed through the door of the room where the Apostles were hiding out, so did He passed through His mother in the Virgin Birth.

As I understood Archbishop Muller, this is similar to the point he was making, i.e. that we should not be putting our attention on the physiological details but rather on the spiritual significance.
(07-10-2012, 12:50 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]Would you please stop this?  Just stop.  Pray for the grace of faith.  It's been demonstrated to you repeatedly now that this teaching is de fide.  If you reject one dogma, you do not have the Catholic faith.  You're in a grave situation and you are trying to bring others down with you.  Stop now.

(07-10-2012, 12:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Also it could be one and not the other. It could be a vaginal birth without pain. Also our Lord was like us in all ways except sin. Could there not be a "redemption" of childbirth? Certainly a possibility. Also not all women weep and wail. My wife with our second child experienced practically no pain, due to meditation. There may well have been a misunderstanding about the science of the time. Really, there were pretty wacky ideas about women, conception, and childbirth up to pretty recent. I am not saying that is at play here, but it could be that one thought a child passing through the birth canal had "pleasurable" connotation, or aroused lust. Who knows. It should be understood too that our Lady was purified like any other woman after birth (Mar 25), even if only out of obedience.

Stop the dramatics. You clearly haven't read the posts since even Mr Lane said the de fide is on the general pronouncement, which has not been denied by anyone.

Ott: "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. "
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38