Rumored new doctrinal czar has liberation theology ties

[Parmandur]

I'm quite sure Mary's perpetual Virginity is a dogma, before and after the birth of Christ.

tim

Yes, but the question is whether she had a physiologically intact hymen after the birth of Our Lord.  Some of the Fathers did say that Christ passed through without breaching it, but it hardly seems necessary to insist on that point.

Which side are you on ? The Bishop said she might be some other kind of virgin. He's promoting this. Am I miss reading his words ?
tim

Yes, I believe you are missing his words.  That is why I posted a section from Ludwig Ott, not a noted Modernist, saying more or less the same thing he did.

[Tim]

Par, here's the quote;

Quote

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains (cf. S. th. III 28, 2).

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act ("sex-act virginity") and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed ("seed-act virginity") (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seens to belong to complete natural motherhood. It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation. Holy Writ attests Mary's active role in the act of birth (Mt. 1, 25; Luke 2, 7 : "She brought forth") which does not seem to indicate a miraculous process.

But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth. However, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view. It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.

I've bolded the exception. In full context this is not the salient point. It is a modern speculation, and that's what I'm not going for at all. Cui Bono ?
Whether Mary "delivered" in the natural way or as a light through a pane of glass both can be expressed as "She brought forth", and it's only some twisted logic which can resolve a not intact hymen, by inventing terms not extant at the time of writing.

Even in my time one could not be a virgin if you had sex, or delivered a baby, so what do you think they were trying to convey 2000 years ago, without these scientific advances and new terms. I think in their limited scientific knowledge and not knowing these new terms they intended to convey that Mary didn't have sexual relations nor delivered Jesus in the normal way, leaving her hymen intact.

tim

[Parmandur]

Par, here's the quote;

Quote

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains (cf. S. th. III 28, 2).

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act ("sex-act virginity") and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed ("seed-act virginity") (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seens to belong to complete natural motherhood. It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation. Holy Writ attests Mary's active role in the act of birth (Mt. 1, 25; Luke 2, 7 : "She brought forth") which does not seem to indicate a miraculous process.

But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth. However, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view. It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.

I've bolded the exception. In full context this is not the salient point. It is a modern speculation, and that's what I'm not going for at all. Cui Bono ?
Whether Mary "delivered" in the natural way or as a light through a pane of glass both can be expressed as "She brought forth", and it's only some twisted logic which can resolve a not intact hymen, by inventing terms not extant at the time of writing.

Even in my time one could not be a virgin if you had sex, or delivered a baby, so what do you think they were trying to convey 2000 years ago, without these scientific advances and new terms. I think in their limited scientific knowledge and not knowing these new terms they intended to convey that Mary didn't have sexual relations nor delivered Jesus in the normal way, leaving her hymen intact.

tim

Part of the problem is that the ancients had a seriously deficient understanding of how reproduction worked.  They thought the hymen meant more than it does.  I don't think it matters one way or the other to the doctrine of her Perpetual Virginity, nor did the Manualists, and this Bishop just seemed to be echoing that line of thought.

[Vetus Ordo]

What spiritual use is there pondering on the Virgin's hymen?

[Parmandur]

What spiritual use is there pondering on the Virgin's hymen?

And that is the Bishops whole point, taken in context.

[Might_4_Right]

What spiritual use is there pondering on the Virgin's hymen?

I understand why Tim is, because he is valiantly defending our Lady.
As for Parmandur I not sure why.

[Parmandur]

What spiritual use is there pondering on the Virgin's hymen?

I understand why Tim is, because he is valiantly defending our Lady.
As for Parmandur I not sure why.

I just think it is odd that this bishop is being singled out as a heretic for stating what was the strict Manualist line of thought in the early 20th century.  For all I know, he is a heretic, but this one is a non-issue, honestly.  I appreciate Tim's zeal, but it is misplaced here.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Ott was a heretic?

[Parmandur]

Ott was a heretic?

No, the potential new CDF Bishop is being called a heretic for saying the same thing as Ludwig Ott, by all appearances.  He might be a heretic on other issues for all I know, but on this issue he seems orthodox.

[Tim]

What spiritual use is there pondering on the Virgin's hymen?

Exactly Zero, Vetus ! I made a similar remark a few pages back. What on God's good green earth would compel someone to ponder the BMV in this way. As I said before it is creepy. I've said my piece.

ciao

tim