![\"Mary9\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/Mary9.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nMadonna and Child<\/em> (c. 1655-1660), by\u00a0\u00a0Bartolom\u00e9 Esteban Murillo (1617-1682)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n I wrote a very extensive paper about this entire issue, entitled,\u00a0Mary\u2019s\u00a0Perpetual\u00a0Virginity\u00a0\u201cIn\u00a0Partu\u201d\u00a0(a\u00a0Miraculous,\u00a0Non-Natural\u00a0Childbirth)\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0Binding\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Dogma<\/a>. As part of that, I cited relevant dogmatic statements of the Church, from\u00a0the newest edition of Denzinger\u2019s\u00a0Enchiridion symbolorum<\/em><\/a>:\u00a0Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals<\/em>\u00a0(Ignatius, 2012), in both English and Latin. This work was co-edited and co-translated by a good friend of mine, fellow Michigander, and great orthodox Catholic scholar,\u00a0Dr. Robert Fastiggi<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Fastiggi is also co-editor and co-translator of a revised version of the great dogmatic work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma<\/em><\/a>, by Dr. Ludwig Ott [see also a sizable online sample<\/a>]. That is due to be published by the end of 2015. Dr. Ott was in error on this point of dogma in his 1952 edition (see pp. 205-206). Dr. Fastiggi informed me that Ott responded to warnings from the Holy Office in 1960 and the reiteration of the traditional doctrine by Vatican II (1962-1965), retracted his earlier opinion in 1969 and revised this section, which will be included in the new upcoming edition. Today he sent me the revised version of the section under consideration.<\/p>\n Here is Ott\u2019s 1952 version of the section in question:<\/p>\n Virginity During the Birth of Jesus<\/strong><\/p>\n Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine<\/em>.)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The dogma merely asserts the fact<\/em> of the<\/span><\/span> However, according to modern natural scientific<\/span> Mary\u2019s virginity during the birth of Jesus was<\/span> Jovinian\u2019s teaching (virgo concepit, sed non<\/span> Is. 7. 14 announces that the maiden (as a virgin)<\/span> St. Ignatius of Antioch characterises, not merely<\/span> Christ\u2019s miraculous emergence from the<\/span> Dr. Fastiggi noted in his personal letter to me today (which he gave permission to share):<\/p>\n In addition to these revisions, there is also the fact that the earlier English translated the German adjective allgemeinen<\/em> as \u201cgeneral\u201d rather than \u201cuniversal.\u201d Although allgemeinen<\/em> can be translated as \u201cgeneral,\u201d there is a big difference in English between a \u201cgeneral teaching\u201d and a \u201cuniversal teaching.\u201d The fact that Fr. Ott sees the doctrine of Mary\u2019s virginitas in partu<\/em> as \u201cde fide<\/em>\u201d argues in favor of translating allgemeinen Lehrverk\u00fcndigung<\/em> as \u201cuniversal teaching.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Now here is the revised 1969 version of this portion, translated into English: to be included in the upcoming 2015 edition of the work:<\/p>\n Virginity During the Birth of Jesus<\/strong><\/span> * * *<\/p>\n Now here are the English and Latin renderings of the dogmatic statements from Denzinger (2012 edition) having to do with Mary\u2019s in partu<\/em> virginity. Analysis is provided by\u00a0Ryan Grant<\/strong><\/a>: an expert in Latin and its historic ecclesiastical use. He attended the Franciscan University of Steubenville and is a professional translator (<\/span>A Small Catechism for Catholics<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0<\/span>On the Roman Pontiff<\/a><\/em>), and has been a\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Latin Instructor at a classical Christian academy \u00a0(seven<\/span>\u00a0years as a Latin teacher). His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Pope Leo the Great, in his famous letter to Flavian, or Tome (449), that was acclaimed and accepted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, stated:<\/span><\/p>\n . . . the Virgin Mother, who gave birth to him in such a way that her virginity was undiminished. (Denzinger [DS] 291<\/strong>)<\/span><\/p>\n . . .\u00a0quae illum ita salva virginitate edidit, quemadmodum salva virginitate concepit . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n And:<\/span><\/p>\n . . . quia nativitas est mirabilis . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Letter of Leo to Julianus of Cos, 13 June 449 (Licet per nostros<\/em>):<\/span> \u00a0. . . he was brought forth from the womb of the Mother in such a way that her fertility gave birth while her virginity remained, . . . (DS 299<\/strong>)<\/p>\n . . . conceptus et natus, sive quod its visceribus matris est editus, ut et fecunditas pareret et virginitas permaneret . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Pope Hormisdas Letter\u00a0Inter ea quae<\/em>\u00a0to Emperor Justinian, 26 March 521:<\/span> . . . opening the mother\u2019s womb by his birth and yet not damaging the virginity of the Mother by the power of the Godhead. (DS 368<\/strong>)<\/p>\n
continuance of Mary\u2019s physical virginity without<\/span>
determining more closely how this is to be<\/span>
physiologically explained. In general the Fathers<\/span>
and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to<\/span>
the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary<\/span>
gave birth in miraculous fashion without<\/span>
opening of the womb and injury to the hymen,<\/span>
and consequently also without pains (cf. S. th.<\/span>
III 28, 2).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity<\/span>
consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act<\/span>
(\u201csex-act virginity\u201d) and in the non-contact of<\/span>
the female egg by the male seed (\u201cseed-act<\/span>
virginity\u201d) (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the<\/span>
hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while,<\/span>
on the other hand, its rupture seems to belong to<\/span>
complete natural motherhood. It follows from<\/span>
this that from the concept of virginity alone the<\/span>
miraculous character of the process of birth<\/span>
cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not<\/span>
be derived from other facts of Revelation. Holy<\/span>
Writ attests Mary\u2019s active role in the act of birth<\/span>
(Mt. I, 25; Luke 2, 7: \u201cShe brought forth\u201d)<\/span>
ThS 572 The Church in Consummation \/ Collection of Readings, 148<\/span>
which does not seem to indicate a miraculous<\/span>
process.<\/span>
But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for<\/span>
the miraculous character of the birth. However,<\/span>
the question is whether in so doing they attest a<\/span>
truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly<\/span>
interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary\u2019s<\/span>
virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific<\/span>
point of view. It seems hardly possible to<\/span>
demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God<\/span>
or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a<\/span>
miraculous birth.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
contested in the Early Church by Tertullian (De<\/span>
carne Christi 23) and especially by Jovinian, an<\/span>
opponent of the Church ideal of virginal purity ;<\/span>
and in modern times by Rationalists (Harnack<\/span>
calls it: \u201ca Gnostic invention\u201d).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
virgo generavit) was rejected at a Synod at<\/span>
Milan (390) under the presidency of St.<\/span>
Ambrose (cf. Ep. 42), which recalled the<\/span>
invocation of the Apostles\u2019 Creed: Natus ex<\/span>
Maria virgine. Her virginity during the birth of<\/span>
Jesus is included in the title of honour \u201cperpetual<\/span>
virgin\u201d (aeiparthenos<\/em>), which was given to Mary<\/span>
by the Fifth General Council at Constantinople<\/span>
(553) (D 214, 218. 227). The doctrine is<\/span>
expressly taught by Pope St. Leo I in the<\/span>
Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum (Ep. 28, 2)<\/span>
which was approved by the Council of<\/span>
Chalcedon; it was taught also by the Lateran<\/span>
Synod (649) and by Pope Pius IV (1555) (D<\/span>
256, 993). Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical<\/span>
\u201cMystici Corporis\u201d says : \u201cIt was she who gave<\/span>
miraculous birth to Christ our Lord (mirando<\/span>
partu edidit ).\u201d The Church\u2019s general teaching is<\/span>
expressed in her Liturgy also. Cf. the<\/span>
Responsorium to the fifth Lesson of the Feast of<\/span>
Christmas, and to the eighth Lesson of the Feast<\/span>
of the Circumcision of Our Lord.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
would give birth. The Fathers also, in a typical<\/span>
sense, refer to the virgin birth of Our Lord the<\/span>
words of the Prophet Ezechiel on the closed<\/span>
gates (Ez. 44, 2; cf. St. Ambrose Ep. 42, 6; St.<\/span>
Jerome, Ep. 49, 21); the words of the Prophe<\/span>
Isaias on the painless birth (Is. 66, 7; cf. St.<\/span>
Irenaeus, Epis. 54; St. John Damascene, De fide<\/span>
orth. IV 14): and the words of the Song of Songs<\/span>
on the closed garden and the scaled well (Hl. 4,<\/span>
12; cf. St. Jerome, Adv. Jov. I 31. Ep. 49, 21).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
Mary\u2019s virginity, but also the bringing forth of<\/span>
her Son as a \u201cmystery which must be proclaimed<\/span>
aloud\u201d (Eph. 19, I). Christ\u2019s virginal birth is<\/span>
accepted without question in the apocryphal<\/span>
writings of the second century (Odes of<\/span>
Solomon, 19, 7 et seq.; Proto-Gospel of St.<\/span>
James 19 et seq ; ascension into heaven of Isaias<\/span>
11, 7 et seq.), and also by Church authors such<\/span>
as St. Irenaeus (Epis. 54 ; adv. haer. III 21, 4\u20136)<\/span>
; St. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VII 16, 93) ;<\/span>
Origen (In. Lev. hom. 8, 2; otherwise in Luc.<\/span>
hom. 14). St. Ambrose (Ep. 42, 4\u20137), St. Jerome<\/span>
(Adv. Jov. I 31 ; Ep. 49, 21) and St. Augustine<\/span>
(Enchir. 34) defend the traditional Church<\/span>
doctrine against Jovinian. For the illustration of<\/span>
the mystery the Fathers and Theologians employ<\/span>
various analogues\u2014the emergence of Christ<\/span>
from the sealed tomb, His going through closed<\/span>
doors, the penetration of the ray of sun through<\/span>
glass, the birth of the Logos from the bosom of<\/span>
the rather, the going out of human thought from<\/span>
the human spirit.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
unimpaired womb of the Virgin Mother finds its<\/span>
ultimate explanation in the Omnipotence of God.<\/span>
St. Augustine says : \u201cin such things the whole<\/span>
ground of the mystery is the might of Him who<\/span>
permits it to happen\u201d (Ep. 137, 2, 8). Cf. S. th.<\/span>
111 28, 3.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
Mary bore her Son without any injury to her virginal integrity. (De fide<\/em> on the ground of the universal teaching of the doctrine.)<\/span><\/strong>
The dogma asserts that the bodily integrity of Mary was not injured in the act of giving birth. Just as in conception so also in giving birth her virginal integrity was preserved. The way and manner by which she gave birth was extraordinary in itself. The precise determination as to how Mary\u2019s virginal integrity persisted in a physical manner in giving birth does not belong to the faith of the Church. In the declarations of the Church\u2019s Magisterium and in the testimony of Tradition it is nevertheless firmly maintained that the virginity in giving birth is distinct from the virginity in conception and is a new factor added to her virginity. The theological explanation brings the bodily non-injury in giving birth into coherence with the freedom from disordered passions.\u00a0<\/span>
This freedom had a unique dominion of spiritual power over the bodily organs and the sequence of events. Hence it follows that Mary in giving birth to Jesus was completely active as Sacred Scripture implies (Lk 2, 7). In this way the absence of bodily pains and especially the absence of sexual passions can be taken into account. The bodily non-injury is the material element of the virginity in giving birth, while the absence of sexual passions is the formal element.<\/span>
Mary\u2019s virginity during the birth of Jesus was contested in the Early Church by Tertullian (De carne Christi<\/em> 23) and especially by Jovinian, an opponent of the Church\u2019s ideal of virginal purity; and in modern times by Rationalists (Harnack calls it: \u201ca Gnostic invention\u201d).<\/span>
Jovinian\u2019s teaching (virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit<\/em>) was rejected at a Synod at Milan (390) under the presidency of St. Ambrose (cf. Ep. 42), which recalled the invocation of the Apostles\u2019 Creed: Natus ex Maria virgine<\/em>. Her virginity during the birth of Jesus is included in the title of honour \u201cperpetual virgin\u201d (WWWW), which was given to Mary by the Fifth General Council at Constantinople (553) (DH 422, 427, 437). The doctrine is expressly taught by Pope St. Leo I in the Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum<\/em> (Ep. 28, 2) which was approved by the Council of Chalcedon; it was taught also by the Lateran Synod (649) and by Pope Paul IV (1555) (DH 503, 1880). Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical \u201cMystici Corporis<\/em>\u201d says: \u201cIt was she who gave miraculous birth to Christ our Lord (mirando partu edidit<\/em>; n. 110).\u201d The Church\u2019s universal teaching is expressed in her Liturgy also. Cf.<\/span>
The preface to the Marian feasts (virginitatis gloria permanente<\/em>) and the Responsorium<\/em> to the fifth Lesson of the Feast of Christmas (cuius viscera intaca permanent<\/em>), and to the eighth Lesson of the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord (peperit sine dolore<\/em>).<\/span>
Is. 7. 14 announces that the maiden (as a virgin) would give birth. The Fathers also, in a typical sense, refer to the virgin birth of Our Lord the words of the Prophet Ezechiel on the closed gates (Ez. 44, 2; cf. St. Ambrose Ep<\/em>. 42, 6; St. Jerome, Ep<\/em>. 49, 21); the words of the Prophet Isaiah on the painless birth (Is. 66, 7; cf. St. Irenaeus, Epis<\/em>. 54; St. John Damascene, De fide orth<\/em>. IV 14: and the words of the Song of Songs on the closed garden and the sealed well (Song of Songs<\/em> 4, 12; cf. St. Jerome, Adv. Jov<\/em>. I 31, Ep<\/em>. 49, 21).<\/span>
St. Ignatius of Antioch characterises, not merely Mary\u2019s virginity, but also the bringing forth of her Son as a \u201cmystery which must be proclaimed aloud\u201d (Eph<\/em>. 19, 1). Christ\u2019s virginal birth is accepted without question in the apocryphal writings of the second century (Odes of Solomon<\/em>, 19, 7 et seq.; Proto-Gospel of St. James<\/em> 19 et seq.; The Ascension into Heaven of Isaiah<\/em> 11, 7 et seq.), and also by Church authors such as St. Irenaeus (Epid<\/em>. 54; Adv. haer<\/em>. III 21, 4-6); St. Clement of Alexandria (Strom<\/em>. VII 16, 93); Origen (In. Lev. hom<\/em>. 8, 2; otherwise in Luc. hom<\/em>. 14). St. Ambrose (Ep<\/em>. 42, 4-7), St. Jerome (Adv. Jov<\/em>. I 31; Ep<\/em>. 49, 21) and St. Augustine (Enchir<\/em>. 34) who defend the traditional Church doctrine against Jovinian. For the illustration of the mystery, the Fathers and Theologians employ various analogies\u2014the emergence of Christ from the sealed tomb, His going through closed doors, the penetration of the ray of sun through glass, the birth of the Logos from the bosom of the Father, the going out of human thought from the human spirit.<\/span>
Christ\u2019s miraculous emergence from the unimpaired womb of the Virgin Mother finds its ultimate explanation in the Omnipotence of God. St. Augustine says: \u201cin such things the whole ground of the mystery is the might of Him who permits it to happen\u201d (Ep<\/em>. 137, 2, 8). Cf. S.th<\/em>. III 28, 2.<\/span><\/p>\n
\u201c. . . his birth was miraculous\u201d (DS 294<\/strong>)<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n