tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post894005547563932036..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: The virgin birth of Christ - What the Church really teachesFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-6625385837177308682012-07-12T07:59:44.516-07:002012-07-12T07:59:44.516-07:00Fr., f.e. have you read the utterances of Müller r...Fr., f.e. have you read the utterances of Müller re resurrection in his dogmatic (German 1st ed. p.300f)?<br /><br />He says that a film-camera or a brute animal could not have filmed resp. seen the risen LORD. Principially.<br /><br />So not only that the LORD could hinder this beeing seen by an animal (as He of course could) - but that it were totaly impossible for brute animals or technical apparatuses to do so - because they are not capable of a "transcendent experience".<br /><br />So the apparitions of our LORD were mere transcendent events.<br /><br />Seeing this same tendency of "hyper-anti-Capernaism" (to react to Bux), of "hyper-spiritualization", "de-materialization", "de-biologisation", critized in the above quote by Ratzinger?!<br /><br />Greetings from GermanyPicardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221858777136446235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-76825235082352457892012-07-11T10:03:37.373-07:002012-07-11T10:03:37.373-07:00Rev. Fr.
You write answering the "Sinner&quo...Rev. Fr.<br /><br />You write answering the "Sinner":<br /><br /><i>The ordinary magisterium has declared that it was not an ordinary and natural birth --<br /><br />The birth was "miraculous" ... and any explanation of a "virgin birth" which tries to "naturalize" the event (i.e. to explain it according to ordinary, scientific, natural terms) is contrary to the teaching of the Church.<br />So, please, stop trying to explain the miracle away by referring to natural and ordinary processes</i><br /><br />so re a person that is much less hetorodox (as show his comments; this poor Sinner is not heterodox at all I would say. He holds expressely that there must be some physiological-miraculous aspect and that the hymen needs to be not-injured, what Müller expressely denies, see below) than Abf. Müller.<br /><br />Müller is so clearly doing what you accused the Sinner of, that I can not get how you could excuse this Müllers heterodoxy.<br /><br />Müller says that the dogma <i>"does not mean some extraordinary physiological anomalies in the natural process of birth"</i><br /><br />so he is really reducing this act of birth to a mere natural, physiologicially-unmiraculous event -<br /><br />the whole content of the dogma were the "healing and redeeming influence of grace onto the human nature, "wounded" by original sin".<br /><br />That´s heretical - but not what the Sinner claims.<br /><br />Although you are of course right that the freedom of birth-pains is also a teaching of the oridnary magisterium.<br /><br />But again, Müller explicitely rejects this as also the two other most securely implied details of this dogma.<br /><br />He says that the dogma does not mean such physiological details <i>"as f.e. the non-injury of the hymen, the non-opening of the birth canals and the non-occurence of birth-pains".</i>, see above!Picardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7994790291016109032012-07-11T07:53:54.692-07:002012-07-11T07:53:54.692-07:00And also if you consider the context, the whole on...And also if you consider the context, the whole one and a half pages of Müllers <i> Katholische Dogmatik</i> (1st or 2nd ed., p. 497-99) re that,<br /><br />then it get´s even clearer.<br /><br />He nowhere states positively that there is some corporal aspect of the dogma, some corporal inetgritiy.<br />He only denies the physiologcial and empircically verifyable aspects.<br />And in general, so at all!!<br /><br />Müller totally spiritualizes the dogma and transforms it into sth. non-corporal, non-physiological.<br /><br />And he ends with a quote of Rahner - where Rahner puts "virginal" and "virginity" in apostrophes, indicating that these words are not meant in the litteral sense (but in some analog way -- so not really coroporal-material-biological, but "spiritual", "theological", as modern theology would say).<br /><br />This tendency of hyper-spiritualisation is found also elsewhere in Müllers works, f.e. re resurrection (c.f. op. cit. p. 300f) or re the Most Blessed Sacrament.<br />And as all modern-thinking theologians do re the ressurection of the flesh/body (carnis ressurectionis).<br /><br />Here even Ratzingers work <i>"Einführung in das Christentum"</i> is not free of that unsound tendency, althoug he critizises exactly this false tendency of modern theologians himselfe, according to<br /><br />http://renegadetrad.blogspot.ca/2011/12/our-ladys-virginity-in-partu.html<br /><br /><i>“The cavalier divorce of ‘biology’ and theology omits precisely man from consideration; it becomes a self-contradiction insofar as the initial, essential point of the whole matter lies precisely in the affirmation that in all that concerns man the biological is also human and especially in what concerns the divinely-human nothing is ‘merely biological.’ … The attempt to preserve a spiritual, distilled remainder after the biological element has been eliminated denies the very spiritual reality which is the principal concern of the faith in the God become flesh.”</i>Picardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-38125479495556000412012-07-09T05:40:04.890-07:002012-07-09T05:40:04.890-07:00Rev. Fr. erlenbush.
I am German, reading Ott and ...Rev. Fr. erlenbush.<br /><br />I am German, reading Ott and Müller in the original.<br /><br />As you stated: Ott does not reject the physical-bodily aspect of the dogma (he only says that the details are not de fide).<br /><br />But sorry, <b>Müller rejects any physiological-bodily aspect at all.</b><br />The text that is quoted above (by Eremita) is clear, at least in the original German:<br />Müller really rejects any bodily integrity and any extraordinary biological happening in the birth at all!!<br /><br />Well, perhaps a better translation of the German "...Es geht nicht um abweichende physilogische Besonderheiten in dem natürlichen Vorgang der Geburt (wie etwa...)..."<br />were:<br /><i>"...it does not mean any extraordinary physiological anomalities in the natural way of giving birth (as for example...)..."</i>Picardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39578344989709932252011-12-31T12:48:33.876-08:002011-12-31T12:48:33.876-08:00I think one thing which would help some is hearing...I think one thing which would help some is hearing from Blessed John Paul II who was a prophet of the Theology of the Body. He speaks twice n this subject in keeping with the constant teaching of our faith. The second time, he offers an explanation which may help those who are somehow having problems with this ancient teaching.<br />In a General Audience of Jan 28, 1987, Pope John Paul II cited the above text from the Lateran Council:<br /><br />"Mary was therefore a virgin before the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin in giving birth and after the birth. This is the truth presented by the New Testament texts, and which was expressed both by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553, which speaks of Mary as 'ever virgin', and also by the Lateran Council in 649, which teaches that 'the mother of God...Mary...conceived [her Son] through the power of the Holy Spirit without human intervention, and in giving birth to him, her virginity remained incorrupted, and even after the birth her virginity remained intact."<br /><br />On June 10, 1992, during a talk in Capua, Italy, he further stated:<br /><br />"It is a well-known fact that some of the Church Fathers set us a significant parallel between the begetting of Christ ex intacta virgine [from the inviolate Virgin] and his resurrection ex intacto sepulcro [from the sealed tomb]. In the parallelism relative to the begetting of Christ, some of the Fathers put the emphasis on the virginal conception, others on the virgin birth, others on the subsequent perpetual virginity of the Mother, but they all testify to the conviction that between the two saving events – the generation–birth of Christ and his resurrection from the dead – there exists an intrinsic connection which corresponds to a precise plan of God: a connection which the Church led by the Spirit, has discovered, not created.<br /><br />. . . . [I]t is necessary for the theologian, in presenting the Church's doctrine on Mary's virginity to maintain the indispensable balance between stating the fact and elucidating its meaning. Both are integral parts of the mystery: the meaning, or symbolic value of the event is based on the reality of the fact, and the latter, in turn, reveals all its richness only if its symbolic meanings are unfolded."ElPadrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-81415981982975910462011-12-28T13:19:55.031-08:002011-12-28T13:19:55.031-08:00Thank you, I was unaware or at least did not reali...Thank you, I was unaware or at least did not realize the significance of Mary's virginity during birth. As a mother with typically sometimes uncooperative young children, I often struggle to relate to Mary as parent to the perfect child. I can dimly relate as mother. I believe but struggle to understand the relationship of Jesus and Mary as fully human like us, but without sin unlike us. I try to reflect on the implications of how they lived at Nazareth. I hope to imitate, but I struggle to relate. I certainly need more reflection in light of Mary's virginity during birth. I assent, since it is the teaching of the Church. I struggle to relate. How do I imitate, when the experiences are so different? How would sinless Mary have raised, corrected, taught one who is sinful?<br /><br />SamanthaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40732992709617274672011-12-24T12:30:43.133-08:002011-12-24T12:30:43.133-08:00from Bill Foley
Father Ryan,
You have the patien...from Bill Foley<br /><br />Father Ryan,<br /><br />You have the patience of Job.<br /><br />I have noticed from the comments on various blogs that some people troll them with comments, who will not accept the teaching of the papal magisterium or of the Second Vatican Council. <br /><br />I had a discussion with a person regarding the virgin birth that turned into a dispute. As a result, I consulted with a gynecologist/obstetrician, who told me that any type of natural birth would automatically break the hymen.<br /><br />Thank you, Most Holy Trinity, for giving us the Immaculate Virgin Mary and the Incarnate Word. Mary was/is a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ--this I accept and believe with all my being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-672469700684482042011-12-24T07:34:08.365-08:002011-12-24T07:34:08.365-08:00@A Sinner,
I really think that getting into to muc...@A Sinner,<br />I really think that getting into to much of the biological detail regrading our Lady's reproductive organs is not very helpful ... certainly, the Church and the Church Fathers and Doctors stay away from this -- you may think it is because they are "ignorant" of female anatomy (you, and others, have insinuated this in the past), but the truth is that they knew well how birthing works (they had seen it many times with animals and at least been around human-birth with their own families) ... rather, the Fathers and Saints blush to speak so specifically of these matters and would not advise us to try to "picture exactly how it looked".<br /><br />Still, because I too would like to be able to imagine something of the event, so as to pray better this Christmas, I would point you to the revelations given to the mystics (especially that given to St. Bridget).<br /><br />I will be posting this tomorrow morning, but you can find it from a post I made last year as well -- http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/12/this-is-how-birth-of-jesus-christ-came.html<br /><br />Peace to you. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-31394224175470818182011-12-24T02:18:53.726-08:002011-12-24T02:18:53.726-08:00Dear “A Sinner”,
Have you never heard of quantum ...Dear “A Sinner”, <br />Have you never heard of quantum tunnelling? Wikipedia correctly defines it as “ the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount. This plays an essential role in several physical phenomena, such as the nuclear fusion that occurs in main sequence stars like the sun,[1] and has important applications to modern devices such as the tunnel diode.[2] […] Purely quantum mechanical concepts are central to the phenomenon, so quantum tunnelling is one of the defining features of quantum mechanics and the particle–wave duality of matter.”<br />Now, quantum tunnelling doesn’t ordinarily happen just because it requires high energies. But God didn’t need to suspend the laws he made. He could simply bind them on occasion. Jesus and the Holy Spirit were God, so they could apply quantum tunnelling so that Jesus’ body’s particles could phase between the particles of Mary’s body, more or less as a wave in a lake can pass around solid obstacles and continue its run. This means the effect occurred according to natural laws, yet was still naturally impossible to occur on a human body, which implies it was simply a miracle, a supernatural event. The true problem with our limited minds is that we find it difficult to perceive matter in its true nature as wave-particles, yet mathematics and experiments easily solved the problem.<br />Father’s example of light passing through glass is illuminating (sorry for the word play), since photons actually behave both as waves and particles. Indeed, if photons didn’t behave like waves, the shadows cast by a solid object would be sharp, while the border between light and shadow, called half-light or semidarkness, is the proof that some photons can dodge a solid object, behaving like a wave. <br />As for the outer look of the event, we could just conjecture. The apocryphal “Protoevangelium of James” described it thus: “And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary.” Of course that’s no inspired work, but it preserves the ancient tradition that Jesus didn’t open Mary’s womb at all, but simply passed through it.Alessandronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3098885480833549942011-12-23T20:33:57.333-08:002011-12-23T20:33:57.333-08:00"It's an analogy ... why can't people..."It's an analogy ... why can't people understand that a simile is not literal equivalence?!"<br /><br />Well, maybe not "beaming down," but the only other option (if you don't allow for miraculous STRETCHING) is, essentially, passing through in the manner of a subtle body, which would basically mean turning into a substance that temporarily lacked the properties that prevent most bodies (except things like light) from occupying the same space as something else at the same time.<br /><br />To me this raises weird questions, though. Does it mean He, as a subtle body bigger than the birth canal itself...also "passed through" surrounding organs (like the bladder) on the way out? And did the infant-sized body, if the natural opening itself was not "stretched" pass through the surrounding lower-torso area?<br /><br />What exactly are we to imagine this "passing out" would have LOOKED like if we were there watching it?A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-32603364400230467272011-12-23T12:53:03.965-08:002011-12-23T12:53:03.965-08:00@Rob,
Ok, now I think I understand you better ......@Rob, <br />Ok, now I think I understand you better ... at first you seemed to say that God couldn't possibly be concerned about so small a physical detail as intact virginity.<br />Obviously, God is very much concerned about such temporal and physical details, since he directed St. John to write of knee-caps in his Gospel.<br /><br />Well, as far as why it matters that Mary was a virgin during the very act of giving birth ... as I hinted at in the post ... Christ's temporal birth is meant to teach us about his eternal birth ... the fact that he is Son of Mary directs us to contemplate that he is also Son of the Father.<br />Now, as he did no harm to his Father when generated from eternity, neither did he harm his mother when born in time.<br />Likewise, as the divine Essence was not severed or ruptured when the Father begot the Son, neither was Mary's virginal cloister ruptured when she brought for her Son.<br /><br />Are the comparisons clear now? <br />It is a simple historical fact that the in partu virginity of Mary was expressed more clearly in the early Church than was the equality of the Father and the Son -- consider that the apocryphal proto-Evangelium of James teaches that Mary remained a physical virgin, and this was long before the issue of the equality of the Father and Son was settled.<br /><br />It is surprising to us, because we think of the Trinity as far more obvious that in partu physical virginity -- but, historically, Mary's physical integrity was spoken of much more clearly in the first days of the Church; and hence, this mystery helps us to understand many things about the Trinity.<br />[example: the early-Church-writer Origen defends the physical integrity of Mary's virginal cloister ... but he is not at all clear on the equality of the Father and the Son]<br /><br />Peace to you. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89177512896947440392011-12-23T12:39:05.844-08:002011-12-23T12:39:05.844-08:00No, Father,
I don't find it silly and incompre...No, Father,<br />I don't find it silly and incomprehensible at all that St John emphasizes that none of his bones were broken. It makes perfect sense that this should be. Nor do I find over the top the emphasis on water flowing from his side. <br /><br />I have absolutely no interest in separating the physical from the spiritual. Virginity is clearly a physical thing, the reality of which I have absolutely no interest in denying. That Mary's physical virginity is a sign of spiritual realities is neither something I have any interest in denying.<br /><br />In fact, I have no desire to deny anything the Church teaches, which I made pretty clear in my last post.<br /><br />What does yet remain unclear, however, is how the integrity of certain part of the female anatomy is to teach us about the eternal relations of Father and Son, of which surely the details have been established on other grounds.<br /><br />RobRobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3420918866732426292011-12-23T12:37:43.076-08:002011-12-23T12:37:43.076-08:00I'm with Father, this time, with no doubt what...I'm with Father, this time, with no doubt whatsoever. And it is a matter of logic, nothing else.<br /><br />The Catholic dogma says that Mary was virgin "before, during and after" Christ's birth. That leaves no room for a free interpretation.<br /><br />Those who claim a spiritual meaning to virginity, can have a point in their favor when they deal with virginity before and after Christ's birth. But since you deny the physical reality of virginal birth, can anyone tell me how a virgin could be only spiritually virgin in partu? Since it is absurd to believe that a woman might have sex while giving birth to a child, a virgin who has conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit would naturally be spiritually virgin in any case. So what's the point in declaring virginity in partu, as the Church does, if it were not an exception? Why isn't the Church content with saying the Mother of God was "virgin before and after Christ's birth", in case the meaning were spiritual virginity, that is her will to avoid sexual intercourse? There is no reasonable explanation unless we admit the virginal birth as a physical miracle. God actually let Mary's womb and hymen keep intact, so that she truly could be virgin, there would otherwise be no miracle and no reason for a dogma.<br /><br />Just a side note: how can we doubt the miracle of Mary's intact nature in partu, when the same God didn't burn the bush under Moses' eyes?Alessandronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-2006031273464878432011-12-23T11:38:15.079-08:002011-12-23T11:38:15.079-08:00@Rob,
Do you have the same negative reaction when ...@Rob,<br />Do you have the same negative reaction when you read in the Gospel of John that Jesus' bones were not broken? <br />Is it so silly and "incomprehensible"? After, what does it matter if the bones were broken? It's just a reference to a culturally pre-determined theme of an unblemished lamb?!<br /><br />Further, you must think that St. John is quite over-the-top when he emphasizes that not only blood but also water flowed out from his pierced side! <br />What does God care about intact knee-caps and water mixed with blood?! <br /><br />You see ... if you separate the physical reality from the spiritual, then you will quickly abandon the faith.<br />You will quickly end up in blasphemy ... what is needed here is reverence and humility.<br /><br />Now, I've already said something of why it matters that Mary was a physical virgin ... it teaches us about the eternal relation between the Father and the Son ... pray with that and you will come to understand the Church Fathers. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-29129987183215032242011-12-23T10:13:11.727-08:002011-12-23T10:13:11.727-08:00Father Ryan, thank you for your kind wishes. I wa...Father Ryan, thank you for your kind wishes. I want to take this opportunity to wish you a most blessed and Merry Christmas. Please know that I pray for you each day commending you to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart!<br /><br />VeronicaVeronicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-47036109877797189572011-12-23T10:12:31.178-08:002011-12-23T10:12:31.178-08:00"In any case, do you really think that God wo..."In any case, do you really think that God would allow Mary to lose her physical integrity through exercise or any of the other non-sexual events?! Of course not! "<br /><br />I guess I'm with Julia here. Though I will assent to whatever the Church teaches, I confess it makes little sense to me. Perhaps that is because of the age in which I live, and having been unavoidably shaped by it. So much the better for having a Magisterium.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the comment above is incomprehensible to me. Why "of course not". The integrity of...ahem...it...seems to me so besides the point. She was a virgin before, during and after. In the fullest sense. But the state of...it..., really?<br /><br />Anyway...<br /><br />RobRobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62086169094705609722011-12-23T09:10:37.032-08:002011-12-23T09:10:37.032-08:00@A Sinner,
Of course the "no birth pains"...@A Sinner,<br />Of course the "no birth pains" teaching (and it is a teaching at least of the ordinary magisterium which demands our assent) is not necessarily demanded by the immaculate conception of Mary and virgin birth of Christ ... but they are most certainly all connected.<br /><br />Much as the immaculate conception is not itself necessarily demanded by the divine Motherhood, but anyone can see that the two dogmas are connected ... it is the dogma that Mary is Mother of God which lead the Church to recognize that she is the Immaculate Conception.<br /><br />Likewise, it is the dogma of the miraculous virgin birth, which led the Church to recognize (and teach) that Mary suffered no labor pains.<br />The two mysteries are connected ... and, though they are "distinct" teachings, they are not "separate" teachings.<br /><br /><br />Finally, don't say that the Fathers thought of Christ's birth as a "beaming down" ... it is disrespectful and untrue.<br />When they say he came forth as light through glass ... they do not literally mean that he was light. They also say he came forth as thought from intellect, and they don't literally mean that he was thought.<br />It's an analogy ... why can't people understand that a simile is not literal equivalence?!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-91495352853484393222011-12-23T09:05:15.964-08:002011-12-23T09:05:15.964-08:00"I noticed that in your last comment (1:34pm)..."I noticed that in your last comment (1:34pm), you once gain compared the birth of Christ to a "natural birth" ... you have to stop doing that! The ordinary magisterium has declared that it was not an ordinary and natural birth -- you have failed in this point in every comment so far!"<br /><br />It was not ordinary and natural in SOME way, in at least ONE point (ie, in that the virginal seal was SOMEHOW preserved unruptured). But it may or may not have been like unto a regular birth in OTHER ways.<br /><br />For it to have been a "birth" at all, the "same sort of event," it must be analogizable to natural births in SOME ways. The question is in what ways exactly; how much was it similar, how much was it miraculously different.<br /><br />And, as far as I can tell, the only difference dogma REQUIRES us to affirm is that He SOMEHOW didn't rupture the hymen on the way out. Everything beyond that seems to be pious conjecture not necessarily implied by the dogma about the virginity itself.<br /><br />The birth was virginal. That is the "essence" of its miraculous nature as defined by the dogma. What else may have happened as regards the cervix, the birth canal, the afterbirth, blood or other fluids, etc...simply seem to me to be beyond the scope of the dogma.<br /><br />You might make a better argument against all that based on Ritual Purity. But, of course, as you point out regarding the fact that Christ wouldn't need to be "redeemed" under the Old Law...the birth of God Himself could assumably never be ritually impure (even if, say, it DID involve blood) anyway, so excluding these other things seems unnecessary when it comes to maintaining the idea of ritual purity.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-81814186478755941042011-12-23T08:58:14.920-08:002011-12-23T08:58:14.920-08:00"the fact that Christ came forth without rupt..."the fact that Christ came forth without rupture to his Mother is given as proof of the fact that she experienced no pain [see the quote from the Roman Catechism in my comment of Dec 22, 12:08pm]."<br /><br />Yes, it is, and I'm just saying...it nevertheless isn't a "proof" anymore than the fact that Mary wrapped Him in swaddling clothes afterward is "proof" she suffered no pains. <br /><br />Just because it is "given as a proof" doesn't mean it holds together logically AS a proof (depending on how you mean "proof"). The argument, in itself, is faulty because it includes some assumptions in its premises regarding the manner of the miracle which are not, in fact, necessarily to be taken as granted, as dogma.<br /><br />A lack of birth pains (if there was such a lack) MAY have been connected to the manner of the virginity-preservation (if, indeed, it happened in the "beaming down" manner that was apparently often imagined). <br /><br />But for this causal connection to work as an argument for no birth pains...you'd have to establish FIRST that this was, in fact, the manner in which the miracle occurred. <br /><br />However, I think the specific mechanics of the miracle of preserving the virginity in partu are outside the scope of the dogma (ie, the dogma does not say, "Christ passed out like a subtle body" or "in a like manner to how He walked through walls," it merely says the virginal seal was preserved SOMEHOW.)<br /><br />Therefore, jumping to a conclusion about no birth pains from an assumption about the mechanics of HOW the virginity was preserved (an assumption not actually contained in the dogmatic article itself, it would seem)...seems like a flawed leap.<br /><br />We are required to accept the dogmas of the Faith. We are not required to accept specific arguments or proofs in their favor.<br /><br />So what I say stands: if there were no birth pains (and I'll err on the side of believing it out of tradition), this is nevertheless, in itself, a teaching separate from both the in partu virginity and the immaculate conception, as neither implies it of necessity.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-10777423345338017242011-12-23T07:32:52.576-08:002011-12-23T07:32:52.576-08:00Father,
Thank you for posting this commentary on ...Father,<br /><br />Thank you for posting this commentary on the virginity of our Blessed Mother--what a great preparation for the Nativity! <br /><br />Having given birth myself and knowing of the pains and process involved, I can understand the importance of not only a virgin conception, but a virgin birth. Not to speak too bluntly, but it is a messy process and I can not think of our Immaculate Mother going through the same event as the rest of us mothers. It lends to a better understanding of our Lord Jesus, too. We were born "dirty" with original sin from mothers who were also born with original sin. It makes sense that Jesus, being free of original sin, would necessarily require a "clean" and special birth--i.e., birth from a mother conceived without original sin and born in a different way than the rest of us. <br /><br />I don't know if that makes sense, but it is my personal mental work-out used to grasp such a beautiful mystery. Either way, I believe all that the Church teaches, so if what I said is contrary to Church teaching, consider it revoked!<br /><br />Have a blessed Advent and Merry Christmas!<br /><br />EFemmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18089886457139411188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80521556623950136592011-12-23T06:25:52.071-08:002011-12-23T06:25:52.071-08:00@Matt,
I think I discussed Rev 12 in one of the ea...@Matt,<br />I think I discussed Rev 12 in one of the earlier comments ... so, just briefly here ...<br /><br />It is clear that John is writing down a vision which is highly symbolic -- hence, we should be very careful about trying to make one-to-one comparisons ... Revelations is not meant to be read as simple history, but is filled with apocalyptic metaphors (which tell us quite a lot about history and the last days).<br /><br />Regarding the woman ... I would no more expect that Mary cried out in labor pains than I would expect there to have been a dragon in the stable roaring and casting down stars!<br />Why is it that people take the first verse literally (Rev 12:2) and then don't continue to read the next verse literally (Rev 12:3).<br />Further, do you think that Rev 12:1 proves that - while giving birth - Mary was literally "clothed with the sun" and crowned with 12 stars?<br /><br />How can we take the middle verse (12:2) in a strictly literal sense and then just brush aside the verses before and after?<br />The protestants betray their ill-will when they quote this verse as "proof" that Mary suffered in giving birth.<br /><br />Mary didn't suffer in Bethlehem, and the sun didn't clothe her, and a seven-headed (and ten horned) dragon's roar didn't wake up the whole town!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-14843752234443364692011-12-23T06:18:29.156-08:002011-12-23T06:18:29.156-08:00@Credo Chris,
I applaud you for seeking to underst...@Credo Chris,<br />I applaud you for seeking to understand your faith. Indeed, it is a great mystery as to HOW this miraculous birth took place.<br /><br />Jesus is, of course, still human -- why, remember that the first Adam, after all, wasn't born of a woman ... and Eve was created from Adam's rib ... and yet they are your first parents!<br /><br />Are babies born by c-section any less human? Are babies conceived in test-tubes any less human? <br />Christ's birth was far more a true "birth" than these! <br /><br />Christ's birth was a true birth, Mary was truly his Mother ... but all is wondrous.<br />I hope it makes a bit more sense now...<br /><br />Blessings and peace to you, in Christ our Savior! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-86183264282525365462011-12-23T03:03:43.544-08:002011-12-23T03:03:43.544-08:00Thanks for your previous answer. In light of that...Thanks for your previous answer. In light of that, can you please explain Revelation 12:1? The verse clearly refers to "pangs of birth, "crying out," etc. I understand the Church interprets the woman in this passage to be Mary (with other secondary meanings such as Israel and the Church). Why would John, who was very close to Mary during her life, write this if it did not happen?Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-74888895991353658862011-12-22T23:24:29.491-08:002011-12-22T23:24:29.491-08:00I must admit an honest difficulty in coming to thi...I must admit an honest difficulty in coming to this understanding. I feel somehow separated from Christ if he didn't share in this portion of our birth/humanity. I'll have to work on that. <br />Not that it must, but how do you see this particular teaching of virgin during birth speaking to or informing us regarding our salvation? <br />Respectfully, Credo ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-70768033464826662042011-12-22T22:38:46.713-08:002011-12-22T22:38:46.713-08:00@Credo Chris,
Steve Ray misrepresents the quote fr...@Credo Chris,<br />Steve Ray misrepresents the quote from St. Ambrose ... he specifically says that "opening of the womb" refers to the natural order of childbirth and that Christ was not born in this natural way, but in a miraculous way ... hence, it is clear that he does not hold that the Lord "opened the womb" in the way you are implying.<br /><br />Regarding St. Gregory of Nyssa, see my earlier comment.<br /><br /><br />The only reason they use "opening of the womb" are because they are comment on the verse from Luke 2 ... these Fathers do not believe that Christ literally opened the womb of Mary after the ordinary sense of opening the womb. These Fathers continue to assert that her womb was sealed!<br /><br />Its not enough to quote the Fathers out of context, Chris ... we have to be honest ... and those quotes don't say what you want them to say. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.com