Did mary have a vaginal Birth.
#41
(05-01-2013, 04:08 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-01-2013, 04:00 PM)Armor of Light Wrote: Forgive my ignorance..

How would a regular birth negate her virginity? 'Virginity' is defined by the hymen being intact?

STOP THIS NOW.  THIS IS NOT A DEBATE.  THIS IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.  ASK YOUR PRIEST.

Impy..sheesh. I'm not smart enough to debate. I accept that Our Lady was perpetually a virgin. I was just asking a question. Well..2 questions..
Reply
#42
(05-01-2013, 04:19 PM)Armor of Light Wrote:
(05-01-2013, 04:08 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-01-2013, 04:00 PM)Armor of Light Wrote: Forgive my ignorance..

How would a regular birth negate her virginity? 'Virginity' is defined by the hymen being intact?

STOP THIS NOW.  THIS IS NOT A DEBATE.  THIS IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.  ASK YOUR PRIEST.

Impy..sheesh. I'm not smart enough to debate. I accept that Our Lady was perpetually a virgin. I was just asking a question. Well..2 questions..

Sorry, I thought your questions were more or less rhetorical.  Why don't you ask your priest and tell us what he says?

Edit:  Forget that.  I see you attend St. Clappy McHandhold.
Reply
#43
(05-01-2013, 04:21 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-01-2013, 04:19 PM)Armor of Light Wrote:
(05-01-2013, 04:08 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-01-2013, 04:00 PM)Armor of Light Wrote: Forgive my ignorance..

How would a regular birth negate her virginity? 'Virginity' is defined by the hymen being intact?

STOP THIS NOW.  THIS IS NOT A DEBATE.  THIS IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.  ASK YOUR PRIEST.

Impy..sheesh. I'm not smart enough to debate. I accept that Our Lady was perpetually a virgin. I was just asking a question. Well..2 questions..

Sorry, I thought your questions were more or less rhetorical.  Why don't you ask your priest and tell us what he says?

Edit:  Forget that.  I see you attend St. Clappy McHandhold.

That's why I ask stupid questions on here!
My priest is a great guy..loves the Lord...loves the Eucharist...loves our Lady..loves clapping...loves to hug, etc..

Where is the 'backing slowly out of the room' emoticon?

Reply
#44
Tim Wrote:Jesus Christ's birth has nothing to do with him being formed in Mary's womb

Really? So is our Lady the New Ark of the Covenant or is she not? If we dismiss the idea of our Lady physically nourishing our Lord in her womb, is she in fact the Mother of God or only in an abstract symbolic way? As Jonbhorton stated, was she nothing more than an incubator?

ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:STOP THIS NOW.  THIS IS NOT A DEBATE.  THIS IS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.  ASK YOUR PRIEST.

Calm down. There's no need for hysterics. This is a debate and no one here has challenged our Lady's perpetual virginity and you are incapable of stopping discussion on matters that are open to debate. Our Lord's conception in Mary's womb is miraculous, and every conception would also be a logical violation of virginity as much as a natural birth in normal circumstances. Why then is it so "repugnant" to you that our Lord miraculously preserved Mary's bodily integrity during a natural birth in the same way He miraculously preserved her virginity in the actual act of conception? Nothing is impossible for God.
Reply
#45
These things appear to have been settled a long time ago.

First, the easy part.  The breaking of the hymen was important to early theologians because while not having a hymen does not disprove sexual virginity, having one does prove it.  That St. Mary was virgo intacta proves that she was physically pure, and that the conception of our Lord was by hearing, and accepting the Word.  As other's have mentioned, the intact hymen fulfilled the prophecies that the new Israel would be born from a Virgin without birth pangs.

Second, the nativity was normal in that Christ came into the world via vaginal birth.  St. John Damascene (The Faith Book IV) attests to it.  However, the Lord miraculously preserved the the body of the Mother of God intact.  The Protoevengelion of James is largely spurious, but does mention that St. Joseph sought a midwife.  The mystery of how this happened is as unknowable as how the bush Moses saw remained unconsumed.  Did God regenerate the branches immediately after they burned, or did the fire somehow burn without carbonizing the branches?  We don't know.  How did God produce the honey or water from the rock?  Did those things pass through the structure of the rock, or merely appear to pass through them? 

I speculate that the answer has less to do with "Newtonian" physics than with time (knowing that there is interplay between the two).  We suffer injury when, in ordinary time, our bodies are acted upon by some force. We do not suffer injury before the force, nor do we suffer the same injury after the force has expended itself.  Christ's birth occurred in Bethlehem in a cave and was visible in time to the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph, the ox and the donkey who were there.  However, in cosmic terms, the infant Jesus, as a force, was not restricted to that time and place.  He had  always existed, and will always exist, in terms of that birth.  The incarnation is a part of the eternal logos which was spoken from the foundation of all creation.  There was no injury to the body of the Blessed Virgin because the birth had already occurred, or looked at from our point, was yet to occur, since the spiritual  effects of the incarnation are perpetual:  Christ is eternally born anew, just as he is eternally killed, in the life of the Church.  The prophecy concerning the Blessed Mother is still unfolding.  There being no "time" in which to limit the Virgin birth, there was no injury to the Mother of God. 



Reply
#46
(05-01-2013, 04:29 PM)Joshua Wrote: Why then is it so "repugnant" to you that our Lord miraculously preserved Mary's bodily integrity during a natural birth in the same way He miraculously preserved her virginity in the actual act of conception?

You calm down, "Gunslinger."

It was not a natural birth.  "Repugnance" has nothing to do with it.  It was a supernatural birth.  This is the Catholic faith.  See, e.g., Denzinger (1957), 314a, n. 3:

Quote:Leo XIII accepted the profession of faith offered by Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the year 811, according to which God "also preserved the virgin who supernaturally and ineffably had given birth; after the bringing forth, her virginity according to nature in no part being changed or destroyed."
Reply
#47
Warrenton, just to make a point it is possible for a woman to have sexual relations without breaking her hymen. It's not common, but possible.
Reply
#48
Supernatural and natural can co-exist.  Christ is both God and Man. Certainly Christ's birth was supernatural, preserving Mary's virginity in every way.  Certainly it was human, because Christ is.  As man he came from the womb of His mother, a human birth, imbued with the supernatural.
Reply
#49
(05-01-2013, 06:32 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Warrenton, just to make a point it is possible for a woman to have sexual relations without breaking her hymen. It's not common, but possible.

I understand.  But it is sufficiently rare that the Fathers considered it relevant.  I don't think the Fathers were interested in proving that the Theotokos was unusual.  They were concerned with proving that her life and the birth of the Savior were miraculous.
Reply
#50
I think part of the problem we're having is how we're using the terms "natural" and "supernatural". I think when Impy insists the birth was "supernatural" as opposed to "natural," he's not opining on which exit Our Lord took out of the womb but only saying that it was not a "normal" birth -- it was a birth in which the mother's physical integrity was miraculously preserved somehow. That's what you're saying, right? And those who have insisted that Jesus' birth was "natural" are not saying that it was just like every other human birth in every respect, they are arguing only that he was born via the usual passage.

Warrenton, is it true that a painless birth was prophesied? I am not familiar with this.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)