It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[Marymog]

well, not if you need them to have not have bad enough, i guess, but this sure strikes me as nothing short of deception by Matthew in that case, especially being as how Jews are so family-lineal oriented and all

I apologize Bbyrd. I was editing while you were responding. there is more to my post.

Apologetic Mary

 

[Marymog]

well, not if you need them to have not have bad enough, i guess, but this sure strikes me as nothing short of deception by Matthew in that case, especially being as how Jews are so family-lineal oriented and all

Got it. You have NOTHING to back up your belief.

I do.

Love, Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Can you quote from scripture that names any other person that you have alluded to?

yes, but it is my opinion that if you cannot understand Matthew 13:55, and you believe that is a lie, or Matthew is somehow being, what, deceptive? Or just wrong? Then it really wouldn't matter what other vv i quoted, i guess

 

[Marymog]

yes, but it is my opinion that if you cannot understand Matthew 13:55, and you believe that is a lie, or Matthew is somehow being, what, deceptive? Or just wrong? Then it really wouldn't matter what other vv i quoted, i guess

Dear dear sir,

I have been very clear on this. I believe scripture. I believe Matthew 13:55.

I stated: Scripture does tell us that someone came from Mary's womb.

I then asked you, "Can you quote from scripture that names any other person that you have alluded to?' I should have asked: Can you quote the scripture passage that names the persons YOU have alluded to: (James, Joseph, Simon, Judas) that came from Mary's womb.

You said YES!

Since you said YES, would you now please give me that quote from scripture that says those four men came from Mary's womb?

Scripture makes it VERY clear that Jesus came from Mary's womb. Please give me a scripture reference that makes it VERY clear that those four came from her womb.

MULTIPLE times I have made it clear what I think about Matthew 13:55. I see no need to repeat myself.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Interesting post.
You said the Catholic Church has NO POSITION, officially, on most verses.

How could this be if the church does a lot of teaching as you often state?

How could this be if Don Angelo does a bible study every Friday evening?
The only one, BTW, in a region of about 10,000 or more persons.

Are you not contradicting yourself??

If the CC does not have an official position, how does it do bible study?

And anyway, I know that they DO have an official position on every verse because I had to make sure I was teaching what the CC believes.

This statement is patently false - and this is why I question your knowledge of Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does NOT take an "official" stance on much of Scripture, as much if it has polyvalent meaning.

To say that the Church has taken an official position on "every verse" is a complete and total fabrication on your part.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The above is so wrong that I won't even comment.
And what about Mathew 1:25?

SHE WAS NOT STATING AN INTENTION.
She was stating that she had never been with a man.
This was before she and Joseph were married.

That's NOT what Mary said to the Angel.
You need to understand the linguistic implications here.

She didn’t say “How can this be, since I HAVE NOT known a man?”
She said “How can this be, since I DO NOT know a man?”

Think about it: The Angel didn't tell her that she was going to become pregnant immediately. He simply told her that she was going to have a child. He said to her: You WILL CONCEIVE and give birth to a son (Luke 1:31).

Mary was already married to Joseph but had not yet come into his home, which is the final stage in the marriage process.
Do you really think Mary was that stupid that she didn't know how a baby is conceived?? If she intended to have children with Joseph, she would NEVER have asked the Angel "how" this was going to happen.

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have notknown”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's NOT what Mary said to the Angel.
You need to understand the linguistic implications here.

She didn’t say “How can this be, since I HAVE NOT known a man?”
She said “How can this be, since I DO NOT know a man?”

Think about it: The Angel didn't tell her that she was going to become pregnant immediately. He simply told her that she was going to have a child. He said to her: You WILL CONCEIVE and give birth to a son (Luke 1:31).

Mary was already married to Joseph but had not yet come into his home, which is the final stage in the marriage process.
Do you really think Mary was that stupid that she didn't know how a baby is conceived?? If she intended to have children with Joseph, she would NEVER have asked the Angel "how" this was going to happen.

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have notknown”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

BoL
You need to calm down.
Mary and Joseph were bethrothed.
Nothing changes.
Your argument above is rather silly.
You would have used the word, ignorant, but I'm nice.

Do not reply to this post.
Thanks.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mary,
"Leaning" does not make a statement true.
There must be hard and fast evidence.

If the Prot of James could be proven authentic, it would say a lot.
But there are so many doubts by those who should know.

Even the CC says that Jesus might have had brothers but that they would have been children of Joseph. He did die, probably, before Jesus' ministry. He might have been up to 20 yrs the elder of Mary.

It seems to me we go from one extreme to the other with Mary.
The CC wants to make her into an almost co-redemptrix, and some language makes her to be one already. Protestants, OTOH, give her very little respect and tend to treat her as just another person.

IMHO, both views are incorrect.
This is not something I'm willing to argue ad infinitum.
I do know from Catholic belief that Mary also did not suffer any birth pains and remained virgin even after childbirth. God can do anything He wants, but I fail to see the necessity of this and the bible does not make it clear to me that she did not have a normal married life.

There's not much more to say.

And AGAIN, you are showing that you don't understand Catholic teaching.
There is NO official teaching on whether or not Mary suffered birth pains. If you claim that there is - then I challenge you to produce it from the Catechism.

As for the Protoevalgelium of James - NOBODY is saying that it is Scripture. It is not.
It is an historical document - not an inspired on.

finally - as to your problem with the term "co redemptrix" - according to Scripture - we are ALL supposed to be "co-redemptos". the term "co" or cooperate comes from the Greek "Sunergos".

Paul describes himself as a co-redemptor:
Col. 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

He says that WE are co-workers (sunergos) with God.
I suggest that you learn about what the Church actually teaches before you go around spouting things off as "facts" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL
You need to calm down.
Mary and Joseph were bethrothed.
Nothing changes.
Your argument above is rather silly.
You would have used the word, ignorant, but I'm nice.

Do not reply to this post.
Thanks.

Then try to understand what you are talking about - because right now, you don't.
That's not an insult - it's merely an observation based on your ill-researched answers.

By the way - every reputable Protestant scholar agrees that Mary and Joseph were ALREADY married.
This is why Joseph wanted to quietly "divorce" her:
Matt. 1:19
Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

 

[GodsGrace]

And AGAIN, you are showing that you don't understand Catholic teaching.
There is NO official teaching on whether or not Mary suffered birth pains. If you claim that there is - then I challenge you to produce it from the Catechism.

As for the Protoevalgelium of James - NOBODY is saying that it is Scripture. It is not.
It is an historical document - not an inspired on.

finally - as to your problem with the term "co redemptrix" - according to Scripture - we are ALL supposed to be "co-redemptos". the term "co" or cooperate comes from the Greek "Sunergos".

Paul describes himself as a co-redemptor:
Col. 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

He says that WE are co-workers (sunergos) with God.
I suggest that you learn about what the Church actually teaches before you go around spouting things off as "facts" . . .

No comment.
YOU find out about the birth pains...

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

No comment.
YOU find out about the birth pains...

Hey Breadman, what's the new pope's take on Mary?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You should change your user name to Maryman

And YOU should change your name to "Irrelevant One-Liner-Man" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No comment.
YOU find out about the birth pains...

Uhhh, no - that's a claim that YOU made, not me.

Show me the official Catholic teaching that states Mary didn't have labor pains.
YOU are the one making the claim - so YOU are the one who needs to substantiate it - not me.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hey Breadman, what's the new pope's take on Mary?

As far as what?

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, not if you need them to have not have bad enough, i guess, but this sure strikes me as nothing short of deception by Matthew in that case, especially being as how Jews are so family-lineal oriented and all

Is Luke being "deceptive" in Acts 1:15 when he writes that Peter spoke to about 120 "brothers" (Adelphoi).
NOT all of them have the same mother.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Amen!! Totally agree.

Sorry, just couldn't stop my fingers from underlining and bolding...LOL

=

See post #926 and respond . . .

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

As far as what?

Oh, you don't know.....

 

[GodsGrace]

Uhhh, no - that's a claim that YOU made, not me.

Show me the official Catholic teaching that states Mary didn't have labor pains.
YOU are the one making the claim - so YOU are the one who needs to substantiate it - not me.

Skip to main content
Watch a quick tutorial for the new Catholic.com


The Reunion of All Christians

Join us for the 2017 Catholic Answers Conference Sept 28-30 in San Diego, CA

• Donate
• Give Monthly

• Forums
• Shop
• All
  
  
• Topics
• Radio
• Video
• Magazine
• Q&A
• Tracts
• Encyclopedia

Was Mary Free from Labor Pain?
Tim Staples

May 02, 2017

SHARE


But more to the point, what evidence do we have for this belief? We can examine it from two sources: Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church as it is communicated to the faithful through both magisterial teaching and in the liturgy.

Sacred Scripture
Isaiah 66

In a chapter laden with references to the coming of the New Covenant, or “the new heavens and the new earth” as we see in Isaiah 66:22—a text referenced in Revelation 21:1—we find this startling prophecy:

Listen, an uproar from the city! A voice from the temple! The voice of the Lord, rendering recompense to his enemies! Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?

Not only do we find many of the Fathers of the Church referencing this text as referring to the miraculous birthing of Christ, we find it difficult to apply it in its fullest sense to anything else.

Luke 2:7:

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.

Some critics will say the fact that Mary “brought forth” Jesus would mean she experienced labor pains. Not necessarily. The teaching that claims Mary was freed from labor pains would agree Mary brought forth Jesus but miraculously aided by God. There would be no reason not to use the language of Mary having brought forth Jesus.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas (who references St. Jerome), Mary being depicted as “wrapping” and then “laying” Christ in a manger is an indicator that she did not endure the normal pains of labor. Even in our day, doctors or nurses would do this kind of work. In the first century, it would be a midwife. Yet the Bible seems to indicate Mary did this by herself.

Magisterial Teaching
Though this teaching has never been the object of a formal definition of the Church and therefore is not infallible, the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives perhaps the clearest example of the general understanding of the Church through centuries past:

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord . . . just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity.

From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ. . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus . . . without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.

It seems fitting: Eve’s sin is causally linked to labor pain. The New Eve was uniquely free from the sin of Eve and did not experience that pain. Indeed, I argue it would seem contrary to our sense of Jesus and Mary as the “New Adam” and the “New Eve.” And, as I said above, it would not seem right to inaugurate this great and glorious New Covenant by experiencing pains that were the result of failure in the Old.

Pope Alexander III (1169):

[Mary] indeed conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and went hence without corruption, according to the word of the angel, or rather (the word) of God through the angel, so that she should be proved to be full, not merely half filled, with grace and (so that) God her Son should faithfully fulfill the ancient commandment that he had formerly given, namely, to treat one’s father and mother with honor.

The Liturgical Tradition
The Church at prayer, both East and West, reveals a common understanding of Mary having been freed from labor pains. In the Mass of “Mary at the Foot of the Cross II,” celebrated in the Latin Rite before the 1969 reform of the liturgy, the Church prayed:

In your divine wisdom, you planned the redemption of the human race, and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.

And also in the Byzantine liturgy, from the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ and from the Synaxis of the Theotokos, Tone 2:

Behold! The Image of the Father and his unchangeable eternity has taken the form of a servant. Without suffering he has come forth to us from an all-pure Virgin, and yet he has remained unchanged. He is true God as he was before, and he has taken on himself what he had not been, becoming man out of his love for all. Therefore, let us raise our voices in hymns, singing: O God, born of the Virgin, have mercy on us.

The liturgy of the Church has always been an exemplary tool of catechetics and moral certitude theologically as well as the primary instrument of our spiritual nourishment in Christ. Thus, the fact that the Church asks its children to affirm Mary’s freedom from the pains of labor in liturgical prayer at Mass is a testimony as to the authority of this teaching of the Church.

For more on this, check out my book, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doc

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Skip to main content
Watch a quick tutorial for the new Catholic.com


The Reunion of All Christians

Join us for the 2017 Catholic Answers Conference Sept 28-30 in San Diego, CA

• Donate
• Give Monthly

• Forums
• Shop
• All
  
  
• Topics
• Radio
• Video
• Magazine
• Q&A
• Tracts
• Encyclopedia

Was Mary Free from Labor Pain?
Tim Staples

May 02, 2017

SHARE


But more to the point, what evidence do we have for this belief? We can examine it from two sources: Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church as it is communicated to the faithful through both magisterial teaching and in the liturgy.

Sacred Scripture
Isaiah 66

In a chapter laden with references to the coming of the New Covenant, or “the new heavens and the new earth” as we see in Isaiah 66:22—a text referenced in Revelation 21:1—we find this startling prophecy:

Listen, an uproar from the city! A voice from the temple! The voice of the Lord, rendering recompense to his enemies! Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?

Not only do we find many of the Fathers of the Church referencing this text as referring to the miraculous birthing of Christ, we find it difficult to apply it in its fullest sense to anything else.

Luke 2:7:

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.

Some critics will say the fact that Mary “brought forth” Jesus would mean she experienced labor pains. Not necessarily. The teaching that claims Mary was freed from labor pains would agree Mary brought forth Jesus but miraculously aided by God. There would be no reason not to use the language of Mary having brought forth Jesus.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas (who references St. Jerome), Mary being depicted as “wrapping” and then “laying” Christ in a manger is an indicator that she did not endure the normal pains of labor. Even in our day, doctors or nurses would do this kind of work. In the first century, it would be a midwife. Yet the Bible seems to indicate Mary did this by herself.

Magisterial Teaching
Though this teaching has never been the object of a formal definition of the Church and therefore is not infallible, the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives perhaps the clearest example of the general understanding of the Church through centuries past:

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord . . . just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity.

From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ. . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus . . . without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.

It seems fitting: Eve’s sin is causally linked to labor pain. The New Eve was uniquely free from the sin of Eve and did not experience that pain. Indeed, I argue it would seem contrary to our sense of Jesus and Mary as the “New Adam” and the “New Eve.” And, as I said above, it would not seem right to inaugurate this great and glorious New Covenant by experiencing pains that were the result of failure in the Old.

Pope Alexander III (1169):

[Mary] indeed conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and went hence without corruption, according to the word of the angel, or rather (the word) of God through the angel, so that she should be proved to be full, not merely half filled, with grace and (so that) God her Son should faithfully fulfill the ancient commandment that he had formerly given, namely, to treat one’s father and mother with honor.

The Liturgical Tradition
The Church at prayer, both East and West, reveals a common understanding of Mary having been freed from labor pains. In the Mass of “Mary at the Foot of the Cross II,” celebrated in the Latin Rite before the 1969 reform of the liturgy, the Church prayed:

In your divine wisdom, you planned the redemption of the human race, and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.

And also in the Byzantine liturgy, from the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ and from the Synaxis of the Theotokos, Tone 2:

Behold! The Image of the Father and his unchangeable eternity has taken the form of a servant. Without suffering he has come forth to us from an all-pure Virgin, and yet he has remained unchanged. He is true God as he was before, and he has taken on himself what he had not been, becoming man out of his love for all. Therefore, let us raise our voices in hymns, singing: O God, born of the Virgin, have mercy on us.

The liturgy of the Church has always been an exemplary tool of catechetics and moral certitude theologically as well as the primary instrument of our spiritual nourishment in Christ. Thus, the fact that the Church asks its children to affirm Mary’s freedom from the pains of labor in liturgical prayer at Mass is a testimony as to the authority of this teaching of the Church.

For more on this, check out my book, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doc

Wow, I think you stuck the Breadman but good.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you GG. I appreciate your thoughts. I never said leaning made a statement true. I simply said you seem to be leaning toward the experts that believe the Proto. Of James is a forgery and I lean toward the experts that say it is in fact a 2nd century document. I have evidence to back up what I believe. You seem to want to disregard the evidence. No big deal to me.

I am guessing you have no evidence to debunk the fact that Christianity HAS been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years. You have responded several times but never debunked it so I guess we are done and I thank you for your time.

Respectfully, Mary

Mary,

Your support of perpetual virginity because 'Christianity HAS been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years', is an Appeal to Tradition Fallacy. The logical form of the fallacy you committed is:

Christianity has been supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary for generations/centuries.
Therefore, we should keep supporting the perpetual virginity.
Our ancestors thought the perpetual virginity was right.
Therefore, perpetual virginity is right.​

It is fallacious reasoning.

Here is a list of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?)

Protoevangelium of James vs The Bible
1 Gabriel is called an archangel (PeJ, Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.)

The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century.

2 Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (PeJ 9:12).

Bible: Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”

3 Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (PeJ 16:3).

Bible: Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15).

4 Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (PeJ 12:11–14:31).

Bible: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1.

5 The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (PeJ 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3).

Bible: Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife.

6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (PeJ 16:2).

Mary: Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14).

7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (PeJ 21:1–2).

Bible: Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1).


This comparison should lay to rest any support of the pseudo ‘Infancy Gospel’ of James as a genuine document to be followed in its support of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Protoevangelium of James (The Infancy Gospel of James) is a fake that is in the Pseudepigrapha. It is a false document attributed to Jesus’ brother, James. Promotion of this pseudo document to support the perpetual virginity, is using the unreliable (PeJ) to support the improbable (perpetual virginity).

Oz