Mary's bloodless birth a myth

Dominus, this is LOC’s Modus Operandi, to make a big deal out of nothing. Get people to question the authenticity of the Magisterium by creating a seeming discrepancy with what the Church teaches and what “the bible says”. (Personally, I have had my bible for 7 years, and it hasn’t said a darn thing yet, not even to yelp when I drop it on the floor.) However, telped as I am to also yawn, this guy can create a crack in one of the younger person’s faith. Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly debunk this inane claim. I, and others here, appreciate it.

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]It isn’t Catholic dogma that Mary delivered Jesus without issue of blood, or even without pain This is just pious tradition, and one which even exists within Protestantism. That having been said, it is, as far as I know, the unanimous conviction of every single early Church Father; they profess it as if it came directly from the Apostles.

I really don’t think there’s a need to get into a whole big discussion over this.

Even if she didn’t suffer labor pains, she still would have gone through with the Purification ritual, for the sake of not causing scandal and her demonstrating her complete obedience to the Law.

It’s for this same reason that Jesus received John’s baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” and even payed the Temple tax for himself and Peter, after telling Peter that he was, in fact, not obliged to pay it.

Yawn

You honestly think that there’s an objection you cane come up with that hasn’t crossed the minds of the Church’s greatest saints and doctors, most of whome knew the Bible better than you know the back of your hand? C’mon . . . :rolleyes:
[/quote]

I’m glad you guys could make sense out of LOC’s thread. It really bugs me when people post threads and just start “quoting” scripture without any type of question before or after the quote.
I want a map that goes with that.

LOC is just mad that his “sinless Mary sinned” thread got shut down or something. :rolleyes:

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

The Church doesn’t teach that Mary didn’t experience pain. By its very implication, this wording suggests that before the eating of the forbidden fruit there were pangs to be intensified.

I may be mistaken, but I don’t know of any church document that goes as far as to say that Jesus’ birth did not bring forth blood, and at least some pain in Mary, but decidedly less pain since “The New Eve” was without the stain of original sin.

If there was an ‘issue of blood’ then that would undermine Our Lady’s virginity.

Women who have used tampons must not be virgins either, then. The hymen does not equal virginity, as another posted has stated, and can be broken for any number of reasons. To say that this means her hymen wasn’t broken is to imply that all women who do lose theres for non-sexual reasons are not celibate.

Mary’s “Sin offering”

[left]In Luke (2:24), Mary makes the sin-offering commanded in Leviticus 12:6-8. (The context is verses 1-8.) She did this, not because she was guilty of moral failing in having conceived and borne a child, but because she and Joseph were faithful observers of the Mosaic Law (Luke 2:23,24,39). They did what the Law commanded.[/left]

Temple sin-offerings never implied moral guilt, but were sacrifices made to expunge legal and ritual uncleanness. This is very evident, not only from Leviticus 12:1-8, but even more from Leviticus 15, where involuntary emissions, menstruation, hemorrhaging, and sexual intercourse produce ritual uncleanness, some of which requires the making of sin-offerings.

Leviticus clearly distinguishes sin-offerings (which did not imply moral guilt) from guilt offerings (which did imply actual sinfulness). The former are discussed in 6:17-23, the latter in 7:1-6. The distinction is reaffirmed in 7:7 and in Ezekiel 40:39.

In Ezekiel 43:18-27, directions are given for purifying the altar and making atonement for it. Verses 19, 21, 22 and 25 call for sin-offerings on behalf of the altar. Of course, an altar can be ritually unclean, but it cannot be guilty of moral guilt. Yet “sin” offering was made for it!

An example of guilt-offering being made to atone for actual moral failures is found in Ezra 10:10,19. The people’s sin was in taking foreign wives in violation of the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 7:3). For this, they were truly guilty.[size=3] :slight_smile:

[/size]

mary’s sin offering :[left]In Luke (2:24), Mary makes the sin-offering commanded in Leviticus 12:6-8. (The context is verses 1-8.) She did this, not because she was guilty of moral failing in having conceived and borne a child, but because she and Joseph were faithful observers of the Mosaic Law (Luke 2:23,24,39). They did what the Law commanded.

Temple sin-offerings never implied moral guilt, but were sacrifices made to expunge legal and ritual uncleanness. This is very evident, not only from Leviticus 12:1-8, but even more from Leviticus 15, where involuntary emissions, menstruation, hemorrhaging, and sexual intercourse produce ritual uncleanness, some of which requires the making of sin-offerings.

Leviticus clearly distinguishes sin-offerings (which did not imply moral guilt) from guilt offerings (which did imply actual sinfulness). The former are discussed in 6:17-23, the latter in 7:1-6. The distinction is reaffirmed in 7:7 and in Ezekiel 40:39.

In Ezekiel 43:18-27, directions are given for purifying the altar and making atonement for it. Verses 19, 21, 22 and 25 call for sin-offerings on behalf of the altar. Of course, an altar can be ritually unclean, but it cannot be guilty of moral guilt. Yet “sin” offering was made for it!

An example of guilt-offering being made to atone for actual moral failures is found in Ezra 10:10,19. The people’s sin was in taking foreign wives in violation of the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 7:3). For this, they were truly guilty.
[/left]
:slight_smile:

[quote=mayra hart]mary’s sin offering :[left]In Luke (2:24), Mary makes the sin-offering commanded in Leviticus 12:6-8. (The context is verses 1-8.) She did this, not because she was guilty of moral failing in having conceived and borne a child, but because she and Joseph were faithful observers of the Mosaic Law (Luke 2:23,24,39). They did what the Law commanded.

Temple sin-offerings never implied moral guilt, but were sacrifices made to expunge legal and ritual uncleanness. This is very evident, not only from Leviticus 12:1-8, but even more from Leviticus 15, where involuntary emissions, menstruation, hemorrhaging, and sexual intercourse produce ritual uncleanness, some of which requires the making of sin-offerings.

Leviticus clearly distinguishes sin-offerings (which did not imply moral guilt) from guilt offerings (which did imply actual sinfulness). The former are discussed in 6:17-23, the latter in 7:1-6. The distinction is reaffirmed in 7:7 and in Ezekiel 40:39.

In Ezekiel 43:18-27, directions are given for purifying the altar and making atonement for it. Verses 19, 21, 22 and 25 call for sin-offerings on behalf of the altar. Of course, an altar can be ritually unclean, but it cannot be guilty of moral guilt. Yet “sin” offering was made for it!

An example of guilt-offering being made to atone for actual moral failures is found in Ezra 10:10,19. The people’s sin was in taking foreign wives in violation of the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 7:3). For this, they were truly guilty.
[/left]
:slight_smile:
[/quote]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

bravo! nicely done!

the virginal conception and birth of jesus

How This Teaching Exalts Christ

The virginal conception shows that the coming of the Messiah was entirely God’s initiative, not the initiative of a man. Children usually come into the world because a man and/or woman decide to have sex. But Jesus came first because God chose to send Him and second because Mary assented to God’s will. The initiative was God’s, not man’s.

Biblical Basis

The virginal conception of Jesus was prophesied in Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14. It came true in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:34-35. Most Christians do not dispute this doctrine’s biblical origin.

Early Christians saw His virgin birth indicated in the following verses: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) Note that a virgin would both conceive and bear; so she had to remain a virgin in childbearing as well.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:7) Now most women, after the rigor of childbirth, are too tired and weak to actually care for the child like that. Yet the Bible indicates that Mary herself did these things right after giving birth! So though this verse does not explicitly state it, many early Christians saw it as implying that she had an easy, painless childbirth.

For the Virgin Birth:

As we saw in the article on the Immaculate Conception, first century Christians believed that Mary had given birth without labor pains. Here are the quotes again: “The report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain.’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11; c. 70 AD) “So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will” (Odes of Solomon 19; c. 80 AD).

Here are some quotes which express the early Christian belief that Mary’s birthgiving did not spoil her virginity:

"Who loves you is amazed
and who would understand is slient and confused,
because he cannot probe the Mother
who gave birth in her virginity.
If it is too great to be clarified with words the disputants ought not on that account cross swords with your Son (St Ephraim, Songs of Praise, 1, 2; )

“Believe in the Son of God, the Word before all the ages, who was…in these last days, for your sake, made son of Man, born of the Virgin Mary in an indescribable and stainless way,-for there is no stain where God is and whence salvation comes…” (St. Gregory of Nazianz, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:45; 381 AD)

“According to the condition of the body (Jesus) was in the womb, He nursed at His mother’s breast, He lay in the manger, but superior to that condition, the Virgin conceived and the Virgin bore, so that you might believe that He was God who restored nature, though He was man who, in accord with nature, was born of a human being.” (St. Ambrose of Milan, Mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation, 6:54; 382 AD) “Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” (St. Ambrose of Milan, The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, 8:52; c. 391 AD) :slight_smile:

Here are some quotes which express the early Christian belief that Mary’s birthgiving did not spoil her virginity

The problem is, however, that the hymen does not represent any kind of seal of virginity. In those days it was believed that the hymen was intact until sex, and that the hymen marked virginity, so it was only natural to assume that it wasn’t broken during childbirth. Today we know that this is not the case, and that the hymen has all of nothing to do with virginity in any way. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to believe that Mary had a fully natural childbirth while maintaining her virginity. Showing early Christian quotes simply highlights ancient people’s complete misunderstanding of the body, and does not indicate Dogma.

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Why this weird obsession over whether or not Mary’s vagina bled? Doesn’t this strike anyone else as add, possibly indicating a deep-seated psychological disturbance?

“Calling Dr. Freud!”
[/quote]

Yeah this is weird post there is no writing anywhere that comments of the blood vagina issue this is out of left field. Their is the ancient tradition that she suffered no pain but is nowhere close as staing the prior issue. THe church has made no comment on this neither do I see why they would do so. THis issue is the figment of the posters imagination this is neither dealt in holy tradition or dogma.

[quote=Ghosty]The problem is, however, that the hymen does not represent any kind of seal of virginity. In those days it was believed that the hymen was intact until sex, and that the hymen marked virginity, so it was only natural to assume that it wasn’t broken during childbirth. Today we know that this is not the case, and that the hymen has all of nothing to do with virginity in any way. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to believe that Mary had a fully natural childbirth while maintaining her virginity. Showing early Christian quotes simply highlights ancient people’s complete misunderstanding of the body, and does not indicate Dogma.
[/quote]

The quotes indicate she was virgin before, druing and after childbrith. Whatever sick angle you want to take this was an early christian belief for the first 1500 years of christianity including many protestants among them Martin Luther. Also your including blood and childbrith is going way overboard it is not discussed at all.

This whole subject goes into detail the church nor theologians have dared to thread there is nothing explicit about the vagina and blood but it does indicate Mary maintained her virginal integrity without violating her virginity. The integrity of the hymen is a sure sign that one is a virgin even in these modern times. So if that was brought up by certain fathers it was a legitamate one. Sure one can break it if not a virgin through horseback riding or masturbation etc. But the point is that most virgins have the hymen intact and if one had it intact it was a sure sign of virginity. That may have described Mary’s state. It was not the church fathers job to talk about exceptions. Heck many left the hymen thing out altogether. Rather going with the formula virgin before, during and after. No talk of blood though I am afraid our protestant apologist goes into gross detail nobody else talked about. When one person brings up something no other major Christian leader thought important guess what?

It’s not important. What is important is what has been revealed to the church and that is this:
In A.D.649 (the Lateran Synod) a statement covering the three specific aspects of virginity — before, during, and after the birth of Jesus — was issued. Pope Paul IV affirmed the three-fold belief in an ecclesiastical constitution, Cum quorundam, August 7, 1555, at the Council of Trent (Denziger §993). The doctrine has been affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church as recently as the 1990s.

Lest one think this is pure Catholic Imagination It is the dogma of the Lutheran church too given to them by Martin Luther.

Two catholic (i.e. of the universal Church) doctrines regarding Mary are supported by The Book of Concord. The first is the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, known in Latin as Maria semper virgo. In Part I of the Smalcald Articles, Jesus Christ is confessed to have been born of the pure, holy, and ever virgin Mary
Again in Article VIII of the Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration), Lutherans confess [font=Courier][/font]

Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.

In his other writings Luther expressed this belief also:

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, *ibid.,*v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

…A virgin before the conception and birth, she REMAINED a virgin also AT the birth and AFTER it." (February 2, 1546 Feast of Presentation of Christ in the Temple)
Now surely Martin Luther is not going to teach something that is not scriptural?

If you guys are going to cut-and-paste from apologetics websites, be sure to give your source(s).

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.