Mary giving birth without pain


#1

When we refer to the tradition that Mary gave to Jesus without labor pain, is this **Tradtion **that must be believed as a requirement for salvation, or is this **tradition **such as legend or popular belief?


#2

I am almost 100% postive that it’s tradition and not Tradition. I’ve never heard anything to indicate otherwise.


#3

[quote=youthcrusader]When we refer to the tradition that Mary gave to Jesus without labor pain, is this **Tradtion **that must be believed as a requirement for salvation, or is this **tradition **such as legend or popular belief?
[/quote]

I think it’s just popular belief. Labor pains were not a result of sin, but they were increased because of it. Perhaps Mary’s pains were not as bad. Who knows–it really isn’t an issue I don’t think.


#4

[quote=youthcrusader]When we refer to the tradition that Mary gave to Jesus without labor pain, is this **Tradtion **that must be believed as a requirement for salvation, or is this **tradition **such as legend or popular belief?
[/quote]

It is based on a single document, the “Protevangelium of James”, from about 150 AD, which is full of fables, was written by an author with a very poor knowledge of Judaism and of Jewish history - it even gets the name of the high priest wrong, for example - and was condemned at Rome in 495 or so.

Not exactly a reliable source for events 150 years before. ##


#5

Was the Protevangelium of James actually condemned or simply not regarded as inspired?

Scott


#6

It’s a pious tradition. You won’t go to Hell if you don’t beliebe in this.

This belief is based in Genesis. If you remember the Fall of Adam and Eve, one of the curses God cast on Eve was she would give birth with great pain.

Well… if you understand this literally, it would mean to give birth with pain is a result of the Original Sin, so a woman without it would give birth withour pain. Mary didn’t have Original Sin, so she would have given bith Jesus withour any pain.

But… Nothing really indicates Mary didn’t suffer any pain when she gave birth Jesus, just that literal reading. Take in mind, a more correct way to understand that story would be an allegoric reading (taking in mind it wouldn’t negate the possibility of a literal reading). God really was not cursing Adam and Eve. He was just describing the new situation. Wouldn’t women have given birth their sons with pain if Even had not sinned? Why not? Our bodies have limitations and women suffer while giving birth because some biological issues now is not the time to be explained. What the story tells are the fears of these who disobeyed God. Eve would be more worried of pain than the fact she was bringing a new life. She became selfish. You see, we humans tend to fear the pain we’ll suffer instead of looking at the good we are doing. That creates many injustices.

Sorry for this small theology lesson… I felt I had to explain a bit this subject so you’ll understand better my viewpoint… :slight_smile:

BTW, what I have said it’s the actual Church teaching (unless I have missed something, it is)

Peace :slight_smile:


#7

Id say its a interesting note, but not of much importance, as far as your salvation is concerned.
I believe that it is supported by some apostolic fathers, but im
not sure.


#8

[list=1]
*]From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.
*]Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.(De Fide on the Grounds of the General promulagation)
*]In General the fathers conceived it as non-injury to the hymen and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in a miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen and Consequentlyalso with out pain…
*]Is 66 verse 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child.
*]St Agustine refers it to like the rays of the sun going through a window causing no damage.
*]Also a good example to from scripture is when Jesus entered the upper room even though the doors was locked
*]We also see this example that no Damage done to us when Jesus Christ comes Flesh in the Mass. God Hides His full glory from us least we would die…though this may seem that I am really reaching out But never the less it is true…
*]This Part of the Dogma must be believed Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.(De Fide on the Grounds of the General promulagation
[/list]Pax et Bonum


#9

[quote=youthcrusader]When we refer to the tradition that Mary gave to Jesus without labor pain, is this **Tradtion **that must be believed as a requirement for salvation, or is this **tradition **such as legend or popular belief?
[/quote]

It is the Tradition of the Church that is still held by the Magesterium today. When Mary gave birth, it was miraculous.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VIRBIR.TXT


#10

[quote=youthcrusader]When we refer to the tradition that Mary gave to Jesus without labor pain, is this **Tradtion **that must be believed as a requirement for salvation, or is this **tradition **such as legend or popular belief?
[/quote]

Hi, friend.

Though more than one Magisterial declaration asserts that Mary gave birth without pain, with breaking water, without issuance of meconium or amniotic fluid, and without afterbirth – in other words, though they do not use the term, though more than one Magisterial declaration asserts that Jesus was born by some kind of miraculous “beaming down” – the position is puzzling because ANOTHER group of Magisterial declarations – in the BIBLE!!! – seems to squarely contradict this.

So, for me the question is not settled.

WISDOM 7:5-6: At Matthew 21:4-5, the Magisterium asserts that Jesus was a “king.” At Wisdom 7:5-6 the Magisterium says, “For no king has any different…birth, but one [way] is the entry into life for all.” I doubt that any other king beamed-down out of his mother.

THE “FIRST-BORN MALE TO OPEN THE WOMB” PROPHECIES: Christ rides an a s s into Jerusalem at the time of His Messianic entry to connect Him to a set of prophecies which say that the first-born male who opens the womb who is unredeemed must be destroyed. The prophecies use the colt of an a s s as an example of a an unredeemed first-born male who opens the womb which must be destroyed. Luke 2:23 also connects Jesus to these prophecies.

Here are the prophecies themselves…

Exodus 13:2: 1 The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 2 “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me.”

Exodus 13:11-13: 11 “When the LORD, your God, has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, which he swore to you and your fathers he would give you, 12 you shall dedicate to the LORD every son that opens the womb; and all the male firstlings of your animals shall belong to the LORD. 13 *Every first-born of an a s s you shall redeem with a sheep. If you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck. *Every first-born son you must redeem.”

Exodus 22:28-29: 28 “You shall give me the first-born of your sons. 29 You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep; for seven days the firstling may stay with its mother, but on the eighth day you must give it to me.”

Exodus 34:19-20: 19 “To me belongs every first-born male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the flock. 20 The firstling of an a s s you shall redeem with one of the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The first-born among your sons you shall redeem.”

Numbers 18:15-16: 15 “Every living thing that opens the womb, whether of man or of beast, such as are to be offered to the LORD, shall be yours; but you must let the first-born of man, as well as of unclean animals, be redeemed. 16 The ransom for a boy is to be paid when he is a month old; it is fixed at five silver shekels according to the sanctuary standard, twenty gerahs to the shekel.”

Now, if Christ wasn’t really “born,” but instead “beamed-down,” after using Mary as a “way-station,” many would have noticed that He doesn’t quite * fit* any of these prophecies which are also declatations of our Magisterium.

THE “PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES” ARGUMENT: Luke 2:24 says that Mary and Joseph and Jesus came to Jerusalem “to offer the sacrifice of ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

What law?

Leviticus 12:1-8. That bundle of verses says that ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’ must be offered “to be clean again after her flow of blood” in giving birth.

This declaration of the Magisterium – Leviticus 12:1-8 and Luke 2:24 – *seems *to squarely contradict those who maintain that Jesus’ birth involved no breaking of tissues and so was bloodless.


#11

THE “GENNAO-TIKTO” ARGUMENT: Compare the Greek terms used by the Magisterium in the Bible to describe John’s presumably NON-miraculous birth (no one ever said that Elizabeth was a “virgin”) with Jesus’ supposedly miraculous birth.

ELIZABETH GIVING BIRTH TO JOHN
"But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear gennao]you a son, and you shall name him John.’" Luke 1:13.

"When the time arrived for Elizabeth to have her child tikto] she gave birth to gennao] a son. "

MARY GIVING BIRTH TO JESUS
"Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear tikto]a son, and you shall name him Jesus.” Luke 1:30-31.

“Therefore the child to be born gennao] will be called holy, the Son of God.” Luke 1:35.

“and she gave birth to tikto] her firstborn son” Luke 2:7.

Interestingly, the root underlying the New Testament Greek term tikto seems to meaning “breaking through water.” It is related to the woman’s water breaking.

So, in Luke’s divinely-inspired gospel in the Magisterium’s Bible, there is not the teeniest, tiniest hint that Mary gave birth in any way different from the way Elizabeth gave birth. In fact, trhe language suggests that they gave birth in the SAME way.

Note that where there IS a difference – in the way Jesus was CONCEIVED – the Magisterium, through Luke, is very careful to point it out.

Conclusion: The Magisterium teaches that Mary gave birth the same way Elizabeth gave birth.

THE DORMITION ARGUMENT: It’s SO important to SO many Catholics that because Mary was immaculately conceived, she have no labor pains in accord with Genesis 3:16, which imposed labor pains on Eve because of the Original Sin.

There are a few problems with this conclusion.

The Magisterium actually affirmatively teaches that at the time of her assumption, just before her assumption, Mary experienced “dormition.” What is “dormition”? Apparently, it’s what we refer to as “flat-lining,” but without any “corruption,” death-generated break-down of the flesh.

NOTE THAT ASSUMPTION PRECEDED BY “DORMITION” IS CLEARLY INFERIOR TO ELIJAH’S NON-IMMACULATE-CONCEPTION-GENERATED ASSUMPTION INTO HEAVEN; ELIJAH EXPERIENCED NO DORMITION!:

“As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.” 2 Kings 2:11. Elijah was talking as he was assumed.

Now, if Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin, and she nonetheless experienced death-like symptoms, at her assumption, characterizing an assumption INFERIOR to that of NON-immaculately-conceived Elijah, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT MARY WAS RELIEVED OF THE OTHER SYMPTOM OF ORIGINAL SIN, LABOR PAINS?

In other words, doesn’t it appear that God was making a POINT of NOT relieving Mary of the symptoms of Original Sin, though she was relieved of the *stain *of Original Sin? And isn’t the Magisterium making it clear that this is true, by stating that while Elijah was taken to Heaven perfectly awake, Mary suffered “dormition” – “flat-lining”?

In other words, if Mary is not to be relieved of “flat-lining” – something Adam and Eve would not have experienced but for the Original Sin, Genesis 3:22-23 – then why should Mary be relieved of labor pains?

Which brings us to your specific point of inquiry:

THE WAILING WOMAN OF REVELATION 12: In the Book of Revelation, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church carefully tells us that the woman who “gave birth to a son – a boy destined to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod” Who was “caught up to God and to his throne,” see Revelation 12:5 – obviously, the Magisterium is referring to Jesus, here, at the plaintext level, so that the “woman” is Mary His mother – “wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.” Revelation 12:2.

There it is. There is the Magisterium’s answer to your question: Mary wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth to Jesus.

Many try to avoid this simple, clear, obvious teaching of the Magisterium by arguing that the “woman” is the Church.

I agree that she is “the Church” at the *sensus plenior" *level * – but who instructed them to “turn-off” the obvious plaintext level? *The Magisterium itself teaches that the Magisterium’s Bible teaches at both levels.

Now, note something: Who wrote those words in Revelation 12:2? John, the Apostle who took care of Mary after Jesus’ death. In other words, he lived with Mary, and so had access to THE authoritative source on what the birth of Jesus was like.

Note another thing: In John’s gospel, the Magisterium itself TWICE refers to MARY with the “woman” title…John 2:4, 19:26.

In other words, OF COURSE the Revelation 12 “woman” is Mary.


#12

[quote=BibleReader]Though more than one Magisterial declaration asserts that Mary gave birth without pain, with breaking water, without issuance of meconium or amniotic fluid, and without afterbirth – in other words, though they do not use the term, though more than one Magisterial declaration asserts that Jesus was born by some kind of miraculous “beaming down” – the position is puzzling because ANOTHER group of Magisterial declarations – in the BIBLE!!! – seems to squarely contradict this.

[/quote]

BibleReader,

I’ve seen you say this before, but I have never seen you cite sources. Would you please? I would like to know if the Popes actually taught what you claim they did.

Second, how would you reconcile the following:
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
Or perhaps the reference “firstborn from the foundation of the world” - was Jesus not “firstborn” prior to the Incarnation? Does that refute your pet verse from Wisdom? Isn’t that unlike every other birth that has ever been? Also, you have not answered how Jesus walking into the upper room through a locked door cannot possibly occure with regards to his mother’s womb. And for all of the bluster about “firstborn opening the womb”, you have yet to argue how this applies specifically to Jesus, and not to various animals / normal human offspring. I conceed that the normative way of childbirth is exactly as described, but I would assert that there was very little “normal” about our Lord or his birth and I have seen nothing in your references to the contrary.

To conclude, I highly enjoy reading your posts when you are in concurance with the Magisterium - you have a lot of knowledge and understanding to offer. When you part ways with the Church because “you know better”, however, it starts to make my blood boil. Again, cite references for what you assert the Magisterium has taught infallibly, or you will lose credibility. Once we have the same data and agree that it says what you say it does, we can work from there.

May God bless you richly,
RyanL


#13

[quote=BibleReader]THE “GENNAO-TIKTO” ARGUMENT:
[/quote]

Oh, and as for this - just because the same words are used, it doesn’t follow that the same concept is being applied. Let’s look at another “same word” argument.

Matt 22:28
anastasei - [size=2]RESURRECTION

Matt 22:31
[/size]anastasewV -[size=2] [/size]RESURRECTION

Mark 8:31
anasthnai - [size=2]RESURRECTION

Clearly, then (according to your logic), we will have a Resurrection exactly like Jesus’! By our own power, we will re-animate ourselves!

See how this doesn’t work?

God bless,
RyanL
[/size]


#14

Hi, RyanL.

I can see that you are beginning to understand the problem: You are “falling all over yourself” to “save yourself” from the Magisterium’s own teaching in the infallible Catholic Bible, by making many hair-splitting “fine distinctions.”

Why not stop making hair-splitting “fine distinctions”? Just read the Bible the way you read the rest of the Bible.

Pope Adrian I wrote, “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

Pius XII quotes this in Munificentissimus Deus, which declared the Assumption Dogma. He also uses the word “dormition” to describe what Adrian referred to as “temporal death.” See Para. 17. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM You MAY NOT disagree with this.

“Dormition.”

So, if Mary suffered the temporal death generated by Original Sin, Genesis 3:22-23, why should she not suffer the labor painsgenerated by Original Sin?

Why wasn’t Mary assumed alive without temporal death, like Elijah? And Elijah wasn’t even immaculately conceived.

In other words, the Revelation 12:2 woman IS Mary, and she WAILED ALOUD IN LABOR giving birth to Jesus.

So, make all of the hair-splitting “fine distinctions” you want, but the Magisterium really does teach that Mary suffered “temporal death” (without “corruption” – rotting).

And, verse after verse after verse after verse in the Magisterium’s infallible Catholic Bible (words which I am NOT articulating with skepticism) seems to squarely contradict a “beaming-down” scenario.


#15

[quote=RyanL]Oh, and as for this - just because the same words are used, it doesn’t follow that the same concept is being applied. Let’s look at another “same word” argument.

Matt 22:28
anastasei - [size=2]RESURRECTION[/size]

Matt 22:31
anastasewV -[size=2] [/size]RESURRECTION

Mark 8:31
anasthnai - [size=2]RESURRECTION

Clearly, then (according to your logic), we will have a Resurrection exactly like Jesus’! By our own power, we will re-animate ourselves!

See how this doesn’t work?

God bless,
RyanL
[/size]

[/quote]

Actually, you’re looking at it upside-down, Ryan.

Jesus resurrected like us – like we will – by the power of God.


#16

No matter what, you’re making hair-splitting “fine distinctions” to avoid the repeated plain language of the Bible.

If you read the Catechism this way, and all of the Magisterial pronouncements this way, completing abandoning the relaxed, ordinary meaning of language, you wouldn’t be a Cathoilic.


#17

I still don’t see the magisterial documentation that RyanL asked for, and I would like to as well.

C’mon BR, give!


#18

It is Pious belief that the Mother of God had no labor pains.No big deal no complicated theorising.


#19

[quote=BibleReader]Hi, friend.

Though more than one Magisterial declaration asserts that Mary gave birth without pain, with breaking water, without issuance of meconium or amniotic fluid, and without afterbirth – in other words, though they do not use the term, though more than one Magisterial declaration asserts that Jesus was born by some kind of miraculous “beaming down” – the position is puzzling because ANOTHER group of Magisterial declarations – in the BIBLE!!! – seems to squarely contradict this.

So, for me the question is not settled.

WISDOM 7:5-6: At Matthew 21:4-5, the Magisterium asserts that Jesus was a “king.” At Wisdom 7:5-6 the Magisterium says, “For no king has any different…birth, but one [way] is the entry into life for all.” I doubt that any other king beamed-down out of his mother.

THE “FIRST-BORN MALE TO OPEN THE WOMB” PROPHECIES: Christ rides an a s s into Jerusalem at the time of His Messianic entry to connect Him to a set of prophecies which say that the first-born male who opens the womb who is unredeemed must be destroyed. The prophecies use the colt of an a s s as an example of a an unredeemed first-born male who opens the womb which must be destroyed. Luke 2:23 also connects Jesus to these prophecies.

Here are the prophecies themselves…

Exodus 13:2: 1 The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 2 “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me.”

Exodus 13:11-13: 11 “When the LORD, your God, has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, which he swore to you and your fathers he would give you, 12 you shall dedicate to the LORD every son that opens the womb; and all the male firstlings of your animals shall belong to the LORD. 13 *Every first-born of an a s s you shall redeem with a sheep. If you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck. *Every first-born son you must redeem.”

Exodus 22:28-29: 28 “You shall give me the first-born of your sons. 29 You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep; for seven days the firstling may stay with its mother, but on the eighth day you must give it to me.”

Exodus 34:19-20: 19 “To me belongs every first-born male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the flock. 20 The firstling of an a s s you shall redeem with one of the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The first-born among your sons you shall redeem.”

Numbers 18:15-16: 15 “Every living thing that opens the womb, whether of man or of beast, such as are to be offered to the LORD, shall be yours; but you must let the first-born of man, as well as of unclean animals, be redeemed. 16 The ransom for a boy is to be paid when he is a month old; it is fixed at five silver shekels according to the sanctuary standard, twenty gerahs to the shekel.”

Now, if Christ wasn’t really “born,” but instead “beamed-down,” after using Mary as a “way-station,” many would have noticed that He doesn’t quite fit any of these prophecies which are also declatations of our Magisterium.

THE “PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES” ARGUMENT: Luke 2:24 says that Mary and Joseph and Jesus came to Jerusalem “to offer the sacrifice of ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

What law?

Leviticus 12:1-8. That bundle of verses says that ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’ must be offered “to be clean again after her flow of blood” in giving birth.

This declaration of the Magisterium – Leviticus 12:1-8 and Luke 2:24 – *seems *to squarely contradict those who maintain that Jesus’ birth involved no breaking of tissues and so was bloodless.
[/quote]

Saying that scripture contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium… :tsktsk:

Where have I seen this before? Hmmm… O yes, I remember now!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95_theses


#20

[quote=RedDeathsMask]Saying that scripture contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium… :tsktsk:

Where have I seen this before? Hmmm… O yes, I remember now!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95_theses
[/quote]

Sorry, but the problem is that the teaching of the Magisterium, in the Canon it promulgated, contradicts the Magisterium.

Why don’t so many of my fellow Catholics care what the Roman Catholic Magisteriumj teaches us through the Roman Catholic Bible which the Roman Catholic Magisterium promulgated?

What? Do they regard the Roman Catholic Magisterium’s Bible as their enemy – to be avoided?

Do you see the problem, friend?

The Catholic Bible, promulgated by the Catholic Magisterium, is not trash to be ignored!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.