« Delaying Infant Baptism? | Main | Mystery Photo Revealed »
June 28, 2006
Ever Virgin
(Tim Jones)
Hey, Tim Jones, here.
Several days ago, while commenting on Jimmy's post entitled James White Responds, I replied to a Catholic-basher who wrote -
"You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary's hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ. By agreeing with that ancient heresy, you guys are by implication sayin that Christ didn't have a real human body..."
Now, I knew this was bunk. In my 14 years as a Catholic, I have never heard this taught by anyone. So, I replied-
"Catholics believe no such thing. That is NOT what is meant by Mary's perpetual virginity.".
And I wasn't alone. Another commenter replied
"Nobody in the Catholic church is required to believe this.".
... which is certainly my understanding.
I admit that, though I studied well enough on my way to becoming a Catholic, and though I feel I have a good grasp of the fundamentals (thanks to folks like Ludwig Ott and Jimmy Akin), I am no apologist. I am not widely read, and there are doubtless a number of ancillary topics of which I know little or nothing. I am familiar with the Catechism (and have taught CCD classes, as well as Confirmation prep and RCIA), but I have not delved very deeply into either theology or Church history (the councils and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church).
So, I was very interested to see a later commenter write -
"Actually, Free Grace is close to the mark on the perpetual virginity thing... the dogma of the perpetual virginity states that Mary remained a virgin before, *during*, and after Jesus' birth, and the "during" is taken to refer to the retaining of the physical sign of Mary's virginity..."
He went on to give THIS LINK to an article on the subject, by Fr. John Saward.
I followed the link and read the article. The commenter was right that a good number of Fathers and Doctors of the Church believed and taught that Mary remained physically intact (no disruption of the birth canal) even during Jesus birth. According to the article -
"It is of divine faith for Catholics to hold that our Lady not only conceived the divine Word as man "without seed, by the Holy Spirit" but also gave birth to Him "without corruption."."
The article continues -
"According to the Church's Doctors, this freedom from corruption means that the God-Man leaves His Mother's womb without opening it (utero clauso vel obsignato), without inflicting any injury to her bodily virginity (sine violatione claustri virginalis), and therefore without causing her any pain.".
So it appears that I was wrong in asserting that "Catholics believe no such thing"... some Catholics do. But can this be called the teaching of the Church on this point? Is it, in fact, defined doctrine?
The Church does indeed maintain that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after Jesus' birth, giving birth to Christ "without corruption"... but what does this really mean? I am certainly open to the idea that Jesus was born in a miraculous way that was unlike natural childbirth... something like the way he could appear and disappear at will after his resurrection, seeming to move through walls.
But opinion has not been unanimous on the subject. The following are from Father Saward's footnotes to the article;
"...St John Chrysostom, for example, is content to assert the fact of the miraculous preservation of our Lady's virginity during childbirth and refuses to delve into the details; "...Although I know that a virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet the manner of this generation I have learnt to venerate in silence, and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech.".
"...Quite a few of the Fathers asked for an unambiguous declaration not only to affirm the Virginal Conception of Jesus—which the Christian faith has never doubted—but also fully to safeguard the aphorism Virgo ante partum, in partu et post partum. The Council thought that the terminology it employed could suffice for this end, without going into biological details. "
"...St Thomas says that the hymen pertains to virginity only per accidens, and that its rupture by any means other than sexual pleasure is no more destructive of virginity than the loss of a hand or foot (cf. ST 2a2ae q. 152, a. I, ad 3). However, he also holds that bodily integrity belongs to the perfection of virginity."
So, it appears to me that, though the council had the opportunity to affirm Mary's virginal integrity through childbirth in clearly physical terms, they chose not to do so.
Also, some saints and doctors of the Church (like St. John Chrysostom, above), while holding that Mary remained always a virgin, were reluctant to delve too deeply into the exact mode of Jesus' birth.
Perhaps for many, or even most, of the early Church Fathers and saints, it might have been impossible to imagine that a woman could be called a virgin once her female parts had been opened, either in the act of sex, or in the act of childbirth. They might, therefore, have been culturally conditioned to understand Mary's virginal purity through childbirth in physical terms (just as we may be culturally conditioned to be skeptical of miraculous explanations).
In modern times, we have a narrower understanding of virginity that means merely "never having had sex". Indeed, if most of us today knew of a young woman who had conceived and given birth without the benefit of any male participation (no sex, no male seed to fertilize the egg) we would surely have no problem describing this as a "virgin birth", even though mother and child had experienced normal and natural childbirth. I would certainly never maintain that the woman could no longer truly call herself a virgin.
It seems to me, then, that Catholics, while they must uphold that the Blessed Virgin was truly "Ever Virgin", are free to believe either that,
1) Jesus slipped from his mother's womb in some miraculous way that preserved her from any bodily disruption (in other words, without opening her womb).
or that,
2) Jesus experienced a natural childbirth, but that this in no way disqualifies Mary from the title "virgin".
or some combination of the two (like perhaps it was a natural childbirth, but Mary was miraculously preserved from its physical effects).
This is all new to me, but my understanding at present is that Catholics are not required to believe that Jesus slipped out of the womb like a vapor, or that Mary was physically unaltered through the birth process. I am open to either explanation, and can even see a certain poetic symmetry to the assertion, but I am not ready to say that it is anything like a dogma of the Church.
Posted by Tim Jones in Mary | Permalink
Comments
Tim. Great post. I waited quietly on this one, as I went through the same eye-opening sequences that you did. A large number of the Fathers do hold that Mary's perpetual virginity is physical as well, and we moderns are too quick to assume it refered only to a conception-event. We know that matter in some states passes an intact hymen, so why not in other states? Anyway, very solid reform post.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Jun 28, 2006 9:26:39 AM
I could go either way. God told Eve, in response to her sin: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children." (Gen. 3:16)
On the one hand, it would make sense that the New Eve, without Original Sin, would be spared this result of Original Sin (more painful childbirth) - although this might not have anything to say about the intactness issue.
On the other hand, God didn't spare His son suffering, and He was perfectly sinless. Mary was no stranger to suffering - she suffered much on her son's account. Childbirth could have been one of the first of those occasions.
Posted by: Leah | Jun 28, 2006 9:28:01 AM
Considering that she rode a donkey all the way to Bethlehem, it's doubtful that her hymen would remain intact, even before Jesus' birth.
The physical integrity of the hymen is not what makes a virgin.
Posted by: Joy Schoenberger | Jun 28, 2006 9:48:34 AM
I'm inclined to point 1 myself if only because the Church only ever bestows the title of virgin to women. If the definition they used for virgin was "never having sexual intercourse" then it seems that the title could be given to men and women yet the church only gives the title to women.
"she suffered much on her son's account. Childbirth could have been one of the first of those occasions."
But remember, she doesn't have original sin, so she isn't under the whole "birth pangs being increased" promise.
Posted by: Al T | Jun 28, 2006 9:57:58 AM
Oops, sorry Leah, I skipped a sentence when reading, ignore my point on your quoted text then.
Also,
I too was suprised when someone told me this a few years ago. So I looked up some info on wikipedia and it turns out that although sexual intercourse will rupture a hymen, typically it is only childbirth that completely removes it. So it would seem that if you want to use the phrase "virgin birth" you would be implying that Jesus was born in a manner that did not remove the hymen. Which for a guy who walks through locked doors, slips through murderous crowds and is present in what looks like bread and wine isn't that unusual at all.
Posted by: Al T | Jun 28, 2006 10:04:28 AM
This is not the first time I've heard of this. I'd always understood, actually, that Mary - being conceived without sin - did not suffer the pains of birth and that Christ left her body in a way similar to the way he appeared in one place or another (ala the upper room).
I'm glad this wasn't some original idea my teacher at the time cooked up.
--Ann
Posted by: Ann Margaret Lewis | Jun 28, 2006 10:44:10 AM
Tim J.,
Very solid post. I for one am thankful for the mysteries God has given us to contemplate.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jun 28, 2006 11:06:26 AM
One priest compared the virgin birth with light passing through a window. I don't know where he got that idea, but it sounded interesting. I still don't get it, but I like St. John Chrysostom's idea. Maybe I don't need to "get it."
Posted by: Viajero | Jun 28, 2006 11:08:33 AM
Tim,
Unless you accept the traditional teaching of the Church, "virginity in partu" has no meaning. Do you really think the Church teaching means only that Mary didn't have intercourse during the birth of Jesus, or that she didn't experience sexual pleasure during the birth of Jesus? It would be nonsensical and unnecessary to say that.
I suggest you consult works of Catholic dogmatic theology written before our present era of Modernism. Perhaps a solid pre-conciliar Latin text. Or any classical work of Mariology. You may not have heard about Catholic teaching on predestination either. At some point I'd be happy to give you the authorities for why this is a teaching to adhere to, and not just a pious opinion.
Posted by: Breier | Jun 28, 2006 11:20:35 AM
As you correctly pointed out, Tim, this is theological speculation. It may be true, it may not be. We are free to believe either, or just admit we don't know.
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 28, 2006 11:28:44 AM
There is a helpful (but short) article on this issue here http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM which notes the Church's affirmation of Mary's virginity before (virginitas ante partum), during ( virginitas in partu)and after (virginitas post partum) the birth of Christ but adds the claim that "the Church never has authoritatively ruled on the interpretation or specifics of virginitas in partu."
Posted by: gresham | Jun 28, 2006 11:28:51 AM
A link to consider. Note the directive from the Holy Office condemning the new theories that sought to contradict to the traditional teaching of the Church. See also the ecumenical councils and papal teaching backing up this teaching.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VIRBIR.TXT
There is always more to learn about the teaching of the Church, and growing up as we do in an impoverished theological environment, it's easy for us to unintentionally imbibe the errors of the day. I only had to read the Syllabus of Modernist errors to see how much of my religious education was shot through with condemned propositions. Rather than starting from a perspective of doubting the teaching of theologians, councils, fathers, and doctors, perhaps the Catholic spirit is to begin with acceptance of the teaching, and then an inquiry? Fides quarens intellectum?
Posted by: Breier | Jun 28, 2006 11:31:50 AM
This is not an issue for theological speculation. That's the voice of modernism speaking. Consult the authorities quoted.
Posted by: Breier | Jun 28, 2006 11:32:45 AM
A catena of binding authorities for the traditional teaching. Notice the emphasis on "integrity," a physical word.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=189
Posted by: | Jun 28, 2006 11:39:27 AM
"So it appears to me that, though the council had the opportunity to affirm Mary's virginal integrity through childbirth in clearly physical terms, they chose not to do so.
"Also, some saints and doctors of the Church(like St. John Chrysostom, above), while holding that Mary remained always a virgin, were reluctant to delve too deeply into the exact mode of Jesus' birth."
Lousy Modernists!
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 28, 2006 11:44:18 AM
Breier-
"Unless you accept the traditional teaching of the Church, "virginity in partu" has no meaning."
Not so. It can mean that even if Mary's womb was opened by the birth of the Savior, this in no way affected her virginal purity.
This was not the view at those periods in history when there was far more attention paid to the condition of the hymen in realtion to a woman's bona fide status as a virgin.
Families were required to give assurance, and sometimes even to furnish evidence(?) of the intact hymen in order to contract a marriage. If the hymen was broken by any means at all, this had serious consequences for the woman and her family. For many, this meant that the girl could no longer be considered a virgin, regardless of what had caused the physical disruption.
This is why I said "They might, therefore, have been culturally conditioned to understand Mary's virginal purity through childbirth in physical terms".
Please understand, though, that I am open, and perhaps even favorable, to what you call the traditional teaching of the Church on this. It's just that I have only begun to look at the question. I sure don't care what the modernists think. I am aware of my own vulnerability to cultural conditioning, as well.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 28, 2006 11:54:02 AM
Breier,
"by reason of their serious responsibility to watch over the sacred deposit of Catholic doctrine, to see to it that for the future the publication of such dissertations on this problem be prohibited."
What would you suggest is the problem?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jun 28, 2006 11:55:23 AM
"Notice the emphasis on "integrity," a physical word.'
Sorry, I don't see "integrity" as being necessarily a physical term, at all.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 28, 2006 11:56:18 AM
Bill,
The Lateran Council did explicitly address this question, as you'll see from the link provided. St. John Chrosostom is being misinterpreted to support a flagrant deviation from the traditional teaching of the Church. Reluctance to talk about the details of the female anatomy is not a denial of Church teaching. Reluctance to talk about *how* Mary's integrity was preserved is distinct from denying that it was preserved.
What does "virginity during birth" mean for you, if not the traditional teaching of the Church? It's liquidated of meaning otherwise.
The question here is whether Mary maintained her physical integrity during birth. Because "integrity" is the physical word the Latern Council chose. I don't understand the reluctance here. Are people afraid to admit miracles?
Posted by: Breier | Jun 28, 2006 11:57:01 AM
oops
Posted by: Inocencio | Jun 28, 2006 11:57:04 AM
Tim,
What relationship does opening of the womb have to virginal purity, if not to the physical signs of virginity? You remark:
"It can mean that even if Mary's womb was opened by the birth of the Savior, this in no way affected her virginal purity."
Assume that Mary didn't have virginity during birth. What would be different under this reading? Nothing!
People in ancient times knew that sexual intercourse caused pregnancy, and they understood the difference between physical virginity and moral virginity.
We're bound to accept dogmas teachings of the Church is the traditional sense in which they were held, not reinterpret them to mean the opposite of their previous sense.
As for the term, perhaps if you looked at the Latin, and the underlying Greek word, you would change your mind. Look at the article.
Innocencio,
The problem is how Mary's physical integrity was actually preserved. It's easy to be crude in addressing this question. For example, did Christ pass through Mary like light through a glass? Or did Mary's womb open in some painless elastic manner and then return to its original state? Did she experience any of the pains of childbirth? Etc.
I can understand if you've never heard this before, and if all you've read is a bunch of new books you may be inclided to relativize or historicize the traditional teaching away. I just ask that you look at some older texts on dogmatic theology, mariology, and look at the multitude of sources that show that the traditional teaching means exactly what it says.
And to have a problem with this, I can only conclude that the idea of maintaining physical virginity is somehow seen as repugnant, or too mideval, or primative, etc. Hence the remarks about how the primitive Church fathers thought one way, but how we moderns know that virginity just means no sex.
And I'm not even addressing the minimalistic attitude of: "If it isn't defined, I have no moral obligation to adhere to it as true." That is certainly not the case. What of the ordinary magisterium? What of catechisms? What of the universal teaching of theologians about what this doctrine means? We can't so cavalierly reinterpret a fundamental teaching of our faith. Humility!
Posted by: Breier | Jun 28, 2006 12:11:56 PM
I'll stand with my fellow "modernist" St. John Chrysostom and admit I don't know.
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 28, 2006 12:29:05 PM
Yes, Breier, Humility.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jun 28, 2006 12:48:29 PM
There seems to be a whole lot of carnal mindedness going on.
Why is it that Catholics can't possibly conceive that Jesus didn't embody the Logos until later in life. That's the traditional path. Why did Mary have to give birth to it carnally?
The only mystery to the virgin birth is how anyone can espouse such a bold-faced deception.
Posted by: Sophia Sadek | Jun 28, 2006 12:59:35 PM
A literal virginal conception is A-OK, but a literal virgin birth causes doubts?
Here's the catechism, entry 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
Posted by: Kevin Jones | Jun 28, 2006 1:06:22 PM
The only mystery to the virgin birth is how anyone can espouse such a bold-faced deception.
Well that was easily asserted.
Posted by: Scott W. | Jun 28, 2006 1:20:17 PM
Breier,
I don't think it's so much that people are embarrassed by the idea of physical virginity as that people aren't sure how relevant it is.
One clear meaning, it seems to me, in asserting that Mary remained a virgin during the birth of Christ is that it seems important to be clear that virginity was something that Mary retained, not something which God 'magically' returned or repaired. Thus, in whatever sense we are meant to take the term 'virgin' (either moral, or moral and physical) this virginity was Mary's own and was not in any sense given back to her or repaired. She retained it.
In this sense, it seems important to say that she remained a virgin before, during and after childbirth either way.
Oddly enough, I had the exact opposite reaction as you when I went back and read the Syllibus of Errors a couple months ago. Given the billing it often receives online, I'd expected to find all sorts of incredibly controversial stuff, yet I not only found myself agreeing with pretty much all of it, but indeed found myself agreeing with most of it in a "duh, of course" kind of way, not a "wow, this goes against everything I've been taught" kind of way. I was almost a bit disappointed...
Posted by: DarwinCatholic | Jun 28, 2006 1:35:17 PM
It is, as has been pointed out, Catholic teaching that Mary was a virgin, "ante partem, in partu, post partem, semper Virgo."
I don't think we can simply ignore or dance around the meaning of "in partu" just because we haven't heard of it or it makes us uncomfortable.
We need to ask, first, what was the consensus of the Fathers and Doctors as to its meaning? And second, if it doesn't mean Virgo Intacta, what does it mean?
The question is not, Can we imagine another meaning for that phrase (though, can you, without making it so unimportant as to wonder why it was included in the list?). The question is, What could the people who used it have meant by it? Why did they consider it important? It means what it was designed to mean, not what 20th century guessers think it might mean when they are unfamiliar with the whole frame of mind.
As for "defined teaching," remember: Lots of undefined teaching is Infallible. It's called the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. If this was commonly taught as "of the faith" for centuries and centuries, then it's probably binding on Catholics. We don't need a document.
That's what JPII pointed out in the doc on the ordination of women. He didn't define the principle infallibly himself. He merely told us that it was infallible under the Ordinary Magisterium.
I think that Intact Physical Virginity is probably infallible and binding Catholic teaching. Many, many Fathers and great Masters of theology have taught that it was. I was surprised and uncomfortable when I found this out, too, believe me! But I think that's the only honest answer.
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2006 2:04:20 PM
When I say, "honest answer," I mean, I'd be very happy to believe an alternative, but when I propose it to myself, it doesn't pass the smell test with ME.
I don't mean anyone who disagrees is a liar.
But I think people should think really carefully about what the standards for determining questions like these is IN THE ABSTRACT, before tackling one like this that seems surprising and makes them uncomfortable. Because we are all apt to fall prey to wishful thinking.
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2006 2:08:30 PM
There seems to be a whole lot of carnal mindedness going on.
Why is it that Catholics can't possibly conceive that Jesus didn't embody the Logos until later in life. That's the traditional path. Why did Mary have to give birth to it carnally?
Wow, an honest-to-goodness Gnostic! I'd say you don't see that every day, but in fact, you do see the same substantive beliefs every day (ECUSA being well along their way, for example). Most folks just aren't as straightforward as this commenter in admitting their homage to the past in that regard (the "traditional path" in this case being the Gnostic tradition).
For Christians, the Logos is not an "it." He's a Person, fully God and fully man, eternally begotten of the Father before all the ages and born of the Virgin Mary. He is not "embodied" in Apollinarian fashion; neither does He somehow become the Son of God according to the heresy of the Adoptionists. He assumes human nature in its entirety, body AND soul. Mary gave birth to Him, not it, and He has a body.
Posted by: Jonathan Prejean | Jun 28, 2006 2:13:59 PM
I think the best way to look at it is probably not so much that Jesus did something miraculous (though, duh, He was fully capable of it) as that the Father willed that Mary remain virgin as Jesus was born.
Light through a window, teleportation, atoms moving aside and back again -- all very easy for God to do in whatever Person. If the Holy Spirit wanted to be the obstetrician, or Jesus, or Whoever... well, it would be done.
But other than the bare fact that Mary remained virgin, I don't think I'm particularly concerned about the how. Not really my business.
Similarly, if God wanted to spare Mary childbirth pangs, she was spared them as the new Eve. If not, then she shared in her son's embrace of human suffering despite being unstained with original sin. Either way, it wasn't me who carried Jesus for nine months, so it's probably not any of my beeswax.
Posted by: Maureen | Jun 28, 2006 2:35:18 PM
Hmm. I've got a lot of difficulty with ideas about Jesus "teleporting" out of the womb rather than experiencing an ordinary, material birth. As far as we know, he didn't start appearing and disappearing from places until after the Resurrection -- that seemed to be a special property of his post-Resurrection body.
If we're talking about miracles, though, Intact Physical Virginity needn't imply that specifically. I think one could simply suppose, for example, that the relevent anatomy was miraculously rendered sufficiently elastic to escape damage. So if the "teleportation" idea bothers you, remember that it's not the only possible means.
But like Maureen says, it's probably not that helpful to overly worry about the how. After all, we're dealing with a situation that is an exception to the ordinary natural order in so many other ways already.
Posted by: MenTaLguY | Jun 28, 2006 2:46:15 PM
I see Sophia is back.
She is indeed a Gnostic, as well as a Troll, so I encourage everyone not to respond to her posts further, unless you relish the idea of every JA.O post dissolving into a tit-for-tat squabble focusing on responding to Sophia as she accuses the Church of lying about everything, all the time.
She is from a different planet, and calls into question every teaching of the Church, so a constructive rapproachment is impossible.
In the words of Confucius, "He who goes to work on a different strand destroys the whole fabric".
Let her pass.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 28, 2006 3:09:39 PM
"Let her pass."
As you wish. I was just shocked to see an admitted Gnostic, as opposed to the closet Gnostics you often see. Mea culpa for nourishing the troll. :)
Posted by: Jonathan Prejean | Jun 28, 2006 4:34:39 PM
Jonathan-
No problem, I hope I didn't come off as pushy. You are certainly free to engage Sophia, or any other troll, but I have been down that road with her and found out it was NOT a road, but one of those hamster wheels. Great if you like the exercise, but it really won't go anywhere.
I just hate to see another interesting thread degenerate into a debate about Gnosticism. We have some genuinely fruitful discussion going on, and I'd hate to get sidetracked.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 28, 2006 4:44:06 PM
Jonathan, Check out the post "A Very Naughty Historian" from May 11, 2006, and you'll see what Tim means.
Posted by: bill912 | Jun 28, 2006 5:23:13 PM
"I suggest you consult works of Catholic dogmatic theology written before our present era of Modernism."
Not Ott apparently, who states that the in partu teaching is de fide, but not any explicit physiological understanding of it. Which texts would you recommend?
Posted by: Paul Goings | Jun 28, 2006 5:38:11 PM
Breier -
I will be very happy to read anything you can recommend on the subject, as long as I can find it on the web.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 28, 2006 6:45:58 PM
Goings,
Ott is a single German theologian. I think the reason he gets so much press is that his is one of the few works translated into English. His work is of value as a compression, not as something of profound and individual genius. English is a language deprived of great works of orthodox theology. We scrape by with what we can get.
There are a lot of works better than Otts, but people fawn over that work because its all we have.
As for that passage in Fundamentals, it is incoherent, and contradicts itself. Notice all the evidence piled up for the traditional teaching afterwards, after its been denied.
Jeff has it right, to understand the coherence of "virginity in birth," we have to take a broader notion of virginity than simple absence of the sex-act. It refers to physical integrity.
Ott's work was published and translated at a time when the traditional teaching was being doubted, and before the 1960 monitum of the Holy Office condemning deviations from the traditional teaching. It reflects the strengths and faults of its age. The 1950s were strong, but there was a strong uncurrent of the forces which were unleashed in the postconciliar period.
As for a competing basic reference, how about the superbly annotated Sacra Theologiae Summa, the four volume Latin text published by BAC from the Jesuit fathers of Salamanca?
Or the basic books used to teach priests, like the Latin texts of Tanqueray? Juniper Carol's books on Mary are also very valuable.
Posted by: Breier | Jun 28, 2006 6:46:08 PM
For a modern book on Mary that's very good, check out Theotokos by Michael O'Carroll.
Posted by: | Jun 28, 2006 7:14:24 PM
sometimes even to furnish evidence(?)
Midwives checked.
St. Augustine, arguing that rape victims were not obliged to kill themselves, pointed out that sometimes midwives destroyed virginities while checking them, and even the pagans agreed that did not affect even the bodily virtue.
Posted by: Mary | Jun 28, 2006 7:57:56 PM
furnish evidence? More wide-spread was the post-marital display of the bedsheet used on the wedding night. the ruptured hymen would leave a blood stain.
Do you think our blessed Mother really wants us spending our time talking about her hymen? It's a non-issue now, so why fight about it, just because it's one more thing to pit the VaticanII haters against the rest of us?
Posted by: | Jun 28, 2006 8:23:40 PM
"If the definition they used for virgin was "never having sexual intercourse" then it seems that the title could be given to men and women yet the church only gives the title to women."
Aren't Memores Domini referred to as consecrated lay-virgins? Memores Domini are both women and men.
Posted by: Franklin Jennings | Jun 28, 2006 8:26:27 PM
Serious question:
Other than as supporting evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (fulfillment of prophesies in the OT), why does the virginity of Mary MATTER?
Does belief in Mary's virginity (pre-, post- or during) get you into Heaven?
My understanding is that faith in Jesus and His promise of redemption was the key... all of this speculation about Mary seems a moot point in personal salvation. Why the heated debate?
Meretrice
Posted by: April | Jun 28, 2006 9:00:08 PM
I think, April, that you will find that Catholic teaching says you have to believe ALL the teaching of the Catholic Church or you go to Hell. UNLESS you are invincibly ignorant.
That's why, when Bl. Pius IX defines the Immaculate Conception, for example, he places the Curse of the Church--"Anathema Sit!"--on anyone who even doubts it and tells them that if they do, they have made shipwreck of the Catholic Faith.
That's what we mean by de fide, of the Faith. If you don't believe it, you've lost your faith. No one on this list, I don't think, would doubt for a minute that we MUST believe that Mary was a Virgin after Christ's birth in order to be saved. It's part of the Catholic Faith. But WHY it's so important--well, opinions may differ on that.
Why should these things be that important? Why should they be connected so intimately with our salvation? I'm not sure! There are lots of answers, some more, some less convincing.
But the Church is and always has been Dogmatic, though that scandalizes some people. The trick is: Trust and Accept. The Church is wiser than we and She speaks with the Voice of Him Who sent Her and Whose Body She is.
I may never understand why it's so important to believe in Transsubstantiation rather than Consubstantiation. And the more I study it the less I may be sure of what it all even means! But I submit nevertheless, in perfect confidence, no matter how opaque or even silly it might seem on occasion.
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2006 9:15:47 PM
Here's an interesting quote:
"Magisterium: 1) Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503: "If anyone does not in
accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and
immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in
the fullness of time,and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in
the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and
without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved
her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."
COMMENT: It is important to note the word integrity, which means
the state of being untouched, and so is a physical word. It
rules out lesions, blood and similar things. The Greek text,
which is of equal authority, has "aphthoros," without
corruption.
It was not a General Council, but the Pope was present and approving, hence
the teaching under anathema makes it equivalent to that of a general
council."
Link to Discussion of Virgitas in Partu
Now, I submit that you simply can't come up with a definition of the word "integrity" in Latin or Greek in this context that can mean anything coherent except "no loss of the physical signs of virginity, i.e, hymen, and no physical harm, i.e., loss of blood.
And this is not the only local council that defined a heresy bindingly. Any classical list of heresies includes "Semi-Pelagianism" which was condemned under anathema in union with the Pope and has always been considered heretical teaching meriting condemnation.
Now, I can see being surprised and disturbed by this doctrine and not seeing the point of it. But I do really think that it is de fide Catholic teaching.
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2006 9:41:58 PM
Sorry, Semi-Pelagianism was condemned under anathema not by an ecumenical council, but by the local Council of Orange. However, since it condemned that heresy in union with the Pope, Semi-Pelagianism is a heresy true and proper and is always held so to be.
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2006 9:45:10 PM
Ezekiel ch. 44 -
"Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east, but it was closed. He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord. He must enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and leave by the same way .
According to the John Martignoni on most recent Q&A 6/27/06 on Catholic Answers Live, manay of the Church fathers saw this as a reference to Mary. You'd have to write him for the references. His site is at biblechristiansociety.com. If the Church Fathers are correct, then Jesus left the same way He got there, through the "gate". My observation is, note also that only the prince may sit down IN it. Not on it, not within it, but IN it, according to this NAB version anyway.
Another point I'd like to add is that not all women are born with hymens, and some are even born with very elastic ones which do not tear. A smaller baby can certainly facilitate this. (Indeed, this lack of proof of a tearing was occasion for scandal on many a wedding night in some cultures where proof of virginity must be presented the night after the wedding in the form of stained sheets).
These two possibilities might apply to Mary. Even if one is adamant about the whole hymen idea, there are exceptions.
But as to the assumption that Jesus wouldn't have been fully human if Mary didn't tear: I don't get it how that follows. How does that impact Jesus' humanity at all in the first place? If we have a woman in the situation above, bearing a child with no tears in her hymen, does that mean she didn't just bear a human child? What else would you call it? I take issue with that assumption because it doesn't make sense. Is it because it is assumed that Catholics would have to necessarily believe that Christ wasn't birthed through the birth canal, and to be fully human is to be birthed through a birth canal? If you want to say that, why not extend it to say that he wasn't fully human since his conception didn't occur as a result of human actions like all other conceptions do?
Posted by: Karen | Jun 29, 2006 12:14:15 AM
"...without inflicting any injury to her bodily virginity (sine violatione claustri virginalis), and therefore without causing her any pain.".
What about this passage from Revelation?
A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Rev 12:1-2
Posted by: Joy Schoenberger | Jun 29, 2006 4:22:02 AM
"Other than as supporting evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (fulfillment of prophesies in the OT), why does the virginity of Mary MATTER?"
Well, Meretrice, you've asked why Mary's virginity is important EXCLUDING the two greatest reasons why it is important.
It's like asking "Other than the fact that we will die without it, why is breathing such a big deal?".
If true, Mary's virginity is proof of the divine nature of Jesus Christ, it establishes Jesus as the God-Man. God did not merely inhabit a human body, like a tent, or control a human body, like a puppet - but actually and truly became one of us. He is kin.
The fulfillment of prophecy established Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish faith. He was the One who was to come. He was "The root and the offspring of David".
Now, it is not necessary to anyone's salvation to know about Jesus' role as the Jewish Messiah, but to believe in Jesus as truly God and truly man IS essential.
One could be saved without knowing about the virgin birth, but it is a very significant indication of Who Jesus Is, and is therefore very important.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jun 29, 2006 6:34:25 AM
