Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

For Advent: The Virgin Birth
CathTruth.com ^ | 2007 | CathTruth.com

Posted on 12/06/2014 3:04:38 PM PST by Salvation

The Virgin Birth

It is a matter of Catholic faith that Mary was a Virgin at the conception and at the birth of Christ, and that she always remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. (The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared in 1854, and is based on Catholic Tradition & the following information.) The virginal conception of our Lord denotes a conception without the cooperation of a human father. The thrice holy germ in Mary's womb, out of which the Chief of the human race was fashioned, received from the miraculous activity of the Holy Ghost its impetus to become animated, to grow and to develop. This supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, preserving Mary's integrity and causing Christ to pass through the barriers of nature without injuring them. The doctrine of the virginal conception and birth of Christ is found in the Nicene Creed as well as in the oldest forms of the Apostles' Creed. It has always been the constant and uniform tradition of the Church, and is taught explicitly by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Justin Martyr, Aristides and St. Ignatius. It is formulated in the Roman Catechism, in some Protestant Confessions and apparently in the Catechism of the Socinians, which considers the birth of Christ miraculous without explicitly declaring the virginity of Mary.

The two Evangelists of Christ's virginal conception are St. Matthew and St. Luke. In the accounts of both writers, an angel announces the heavenly origin of the Infant even before He is conceived: "Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:20); "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy Which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). St Luke twice repeats that Mary was a virgin at the time of the Annunciation, and consequently at the time of the Incarnation; the Angel Gabriel was sent "to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the Virgin's name was Mary" (Luke 1:27). The angel, wishing to give Mary a proof that nothing is impossible to God, informs her that Elizabeth, notwithstanding her advanced years, is to have a son. He represents the birth of John the Baptist as something miraculous. But of what import would be these words of the angel, if Mary were to bring forth a son under ordinary conditions? Did not the angel imply that Christ's conception would be more miraculous than John's? Was the Messias to be placed in a position of relative inferiority to His Precursor?

In their genealogies the two Evangelists expressly imply that Joseph's relation to Mary's Son was that of a legal or foster father. In the one case it is said: "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Matthew 1:16). In the other it is stated that "Jesus Himself was beginning about the age of thirty years, being, (as it was supposed,) the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23).

In the episodes of the Magi and of the flight to Egypt St. Matthew repeatedly asserts that Christ is the Child of Mary and not of Joseph, and represents Joseph as simply the guardian and protector of them both. "And entering into the house, they found the Child with Mary His mother, and falling down they adored Him" (Matthew 2:11): "And after they were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the Child and His mother, and fly into Egypt" (Matthew 2:13); "Who arose, and took the child and His mother by night, and retired to Egypt" (Matthew 2:14, 20, 21). It is noteworthy that in all these passages the angel who addresses Joseph concerning our Lord, never refers to the latter as "thy child."

The supernatural activity of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Christ. As a ray of light penetrates a crystal without injuring it, as the risen Christ entered into the midst of the disciples through closed doors, so He also came forth from His mother's womb without any injury to her virginity. His birth was accompanied by no injury to Mary's organs, no pangs nor throes of childbirth. It did not introduce those physiological conditions which would place Mary - at least materially - in a state of non-virginity, conditions which presuppose and follow from natural conception. In affirming the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, the Fathers appeal to the following passage in Isaias: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a Son" (Isaias 7:14); in this passage "virgin" is the subject of both verbs - Mary was a virgin in the birth of Christ as well as in the conception of Christ. The Purification (Luke 2:22) offers no difficulty to this doctrine. The sacred writer cites a provision of the Mosaic Law to which Mary in all humility and obedience submitted. The virginal conception and birth were as yet known to only a very few. In addition, the Mosaic Law required that every first-born be consecrated to the Lord.

Theology advances several reasons to show why Christ was born of a virgin. The First Person of the Blessed Trinity is the real and true Father of Christ; it would be unbecoming that He transfer His dignity to a mere man. Secondly, it was fitting that He Who was born in a virginal manner in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, should also be born in a perfect virginal manner in time. Thirdly, Christ wished to avoid the mode of man's procreation which is infected with original sin. He decreed not to incur that taint He had come to destroy. Born of a virgin who was conceived without sin, He was clothed with a pure and holy flesh. He was a Man as we are but without semblance or stain of sin.

In the bitter controversy which a few years ago ensued between the Fundamentalists and Modernists, the Virgin Birth was one of the first doctrines attacked and rejected by the latter. Now, on what arguments do the Modernists rely? In the first place, they call attention to the fact that St. Luke in three places makes mention of the Saviour's "parents" (Luke 2:27, 41, 43). These passages, however, can hardly be construed as contradicting St. Luke's doctrine concerning the Virgin Birth. Having once described the virginal conception of Christ, St. Luke did not deem it necessary to be forever repeating that Jesus was not the real son of Joseph. Besides, St. Joseph by his marriage to the Blessed Virgin was a legal and foster-father of Christ, and as such had real paternal rights. It is possible, too, that in these passages the Evangelist is speaking from the viewpoint of the multitudes who were unacquainted with the mystery of the Incarnation.

At the finding in the Temple Mary says to her Son: "Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee" (Luke 2:48). Since the Blessed Virgin was speaking in the hearing of strangers who did not know of the Virgin Birth, Mary refers to Joseph as the "father" of Christ; any insinuation that Joseph was not the real father of Christ would have immediately aroused serious suspicions in the minds of the Jews.

Besides, in the reply which Christ gave to His mother saying "Do you not know that I must be about my Father's business", do not the words, "My Father", constitute a very strong argument in favor of the supernatural conception of Christ?

The Modernists also call attention to the following remarks concerning the Saviour, recorded in the Gospel: "Is not this the carpenter's son?" (Matthew 13:55); "Is not this the son of Joseph?" (Luke 4:22); "We have found him of whom Moses did write, Jesus, the son of Joseph of Nazareth" (John 1:45); "Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (John 6:42), These examples reflect the popular opinion which went by appearances and which knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. They were terms used by the public to characterize a situation which it understood only superficially. They do not express the conviction and teaching of the sacred writers. The Evangelists well knew that these statements - inserted into their narratives - would be easily understood by the reader.

In 1892 a Syriac manuscript of the Gospels - seemingly of very great antiquity - was found in the library of the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai. This Codex Syrus Sinaiticus, as it is called, was discovered by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson.

According to this manuscript, Matthew 1:16 reads: "Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin, begot Jesus who is called Christ." The Modernists immediately hailed this reading as an important argument against the Virgin Birth. One codex, however, cannot prevail against all the rest. Furthermore, in the immediate context we read that Mary conceived Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost. Hence, one solution would be to posit a contradiction in the version although this is not very probable. Possibly "begot" is a slip of the scribe who mechanically repeated the verb "begot" in place of "was begotten" or "was born".

Most probably the verb "begot" is taken here in a legal sense and refers to Joseph's legal paternity. For Joseph was a legal husband of Mary and an adoptive father of Christ, and as such enjoyed all the rights and privileges of a father.

Some writers point to the silence of St. Mark, St. John and St. Paul concerning the virginal conception. The Gospels, however, were not systematic biographies, but each one of them was called forth by a specific purpose in the mind of the author.

The silence of St. Mark causes no difficulty since he does not speak of the birth of Christ at all. St. John knew and used the Synoptics. St. Ignatius, who was a contemporary of St. John and lived in the same country, and whose writings are permeated with Johannine ideas and phraseology, repeatedly speaks of the Virgin Birth. There may be a reference to the Virgin Birth in John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh." St. Paul's Epistles were not systematic treatises of theology but letters evoked by the needs of the missions. St. Paul was a friend of St. Luke, and hence we have every reason to believe that the Apostle knew and accepted the doctrine. There may be an allusion to Christ's virginal conception in Galatians 4:4: "Made of a woman, made under the law." Finally, we must remember that the mystery of the Holy Family was not generally known in Nazareth and among the early Christians. Christ Himself did not refer to it in His public preaching since it would have exposed Him and His mother to public criticism.

Not much need be said of those theories which derive the Virgin Birth from contemporary heathenism. The early Christians manifested so profound an abhorrence for heathenism that it is antecedently improbable that they would have borrowed from the immoral mythologies of paganism. Besides, the differences between the Virgin Birth and the legendary origin of the pagan deities and heroes are so great that it is incorrect to speak of the second as parallels of the first. The strong Semitic coloring of the narratives of the Infancy shows that they arose in Palestine - in a Jewish and not in a pagan atmosphere. Since St. Matthew gives prominence to St. Joseph and St. Luke to Mary, it is probable that the account of the first Gospel goes back to St. Joseph and the Lukan narrative to the Blessed Mother (Luke 2:51).

We must carefully distinguish the Virgin Birth of our Lord from the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Blessed Virgin had not only a real mother but also a real father, and her conception was brought about according to the human laws of generation. But at the moment that her soul was joined to her body, God - in view of the merits of Christ - filled her soul with sanctifying grace. Whereas men receive sanctifying grace only at Baptism, and whereas John the Baptist received it at the Visitation, Mary, on the other hand, received grace at the first moment of her conception. In our case, the merits of Christ cleanse our soul from sin; in Mary's case, the merits of Christ prevented sin from entering into and tainting Mary's soul. In other words, Mary was preserved from original and from all sin.

Discussion Aids

1. What is meant by the virginal conception of Christ?
2. On what grounds is the doctrine of the virginal conception and birth of Christ based?
3. What is the teaching of St. Matthew and St. Luke concerning the virginal conception Christ?
4. How is the miraculous birth of Christ established by a comparison with the birth of John the Baptist?
5. How is the fact that St. Joseph was only a foster-father of Christ established by;
     a) the genealogies;
     b) the flight to Egypt?
6. What is meant by the Virgin Birth of Christ?
7. Does the Purification of the Blessed Virgin offer any obstacle to this doctrine?
8. How can reason show the fitness of the Virgin Birth?
9. Is the Virgin Birth disproved by the Scriptural reference to;
     a) Joseph and Mary as Christ's "parents"
     b) Christ as the "son of Joseph?"
10. How explain the silence of St. Mark, St. John and St. Paul concerning the Virgin Birth?
11. Did the doctrine of the Virgin Birth arise from contemporary heathenism?
12. What is the difference between the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception?
13. What is the ultimate reason why many non-Catholic sects attack the Virgin Birth?
14. Why is the modern paganistic world unable appreciate or grasp the Virgin Birth? Why is it frequently hostile to it?
15. Name the various forces at work today which are trying to destroy respect for the purity of soul and body.

Religious Practices

1. I will have a great respect for the human body which existed in a state of such absolute purity in Our Lord and in the Blessed Virgin Mary.
2. I will try to understand that the human body is good in itself but that the use we make of it is sometimes evil.
3. I will pronounce with great reverence that well known title of our Lady, "Ever-Blessed Virgin".>



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-437 last
To: Elsie

I see what you mean, now.

But I only just recently figured out how to make a link to lead to some time part-way through.

Thanks for that.

421 posted on 12/11/2014 7:14:18 AM PST by BlueDragon (I could see sound,love,and the soundsetme Free,but youwerenot listening,so could not see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

“I’m know Catholics refrain from staying with scripture for their doctrines and beliefs and consider other “communications” to be equal but they are not.”

Just one more thing you “know” that is false.


422 posted on 12/11/2014 9:18:57 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

It’s funny how willing you are to accept the words of men, if they contradict Scripture and the Church.


423 posted on 12/11/2014 9:22:53 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

“Personal experiences arre great. Every pagan religion can claim them. Whirling dervishes whirl for a reason.”

soph-ist-ry

[sof-uh-stree]

noun, plural sophistries.

1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

And, oh, wait a minute: are you saying that yours is the one true religion precisely because you do not admit that God speaks to you?

Oh, now that’s rich.


424 posted on 12/11/2014 9:26:30 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

If I wanted to pull the wool over your eyes, that would be no great feat.

Communicating the truth, now, that is one of the labors of Hercules.


425 posted on 12/11/2014 9:28:32 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

By that I mean that ““I’m know Catholics refrain from staying with scripture for their doctrines and beliefs and consider other “communications” to be equal” is false, as you have been told many times.

It is, of course, false that they are equal, and this is what the Church teaches.

You’re welcome.


426 posted on 12/11/2014 9:38:07 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Oh you are now into mind reading and telling me what I know? I thought that was forbidden here.


427 posted on 12/11/2014 9:52:41 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Ah dsc, first I wish you a very Merry Christmas. May it be a time of great spiritual blessing and communion for you.

As to your post...

I claim only that experience is not the basis of doctrine, or truth is reduced to common experience.

I do not dispute your right to believe whatever you wish. Nor my own. I just point out that for one who claims the name of Christ, it is an insufficient basis.

At every turn, the Savior referred to what was “written”.

God inspired men to write His message over millennia. Men and women had experiences during that time, but they while many were significant, they did not form the doctrines of belief. Nor did the Savior rely upon them. Even during His deepest temptation by Satan, He did not rely on a single experience.

Christ went back to the unchangeable Word of God each time, responding only “it is written.” In this test of the seed of the woman versus the serpent, only the Word of God prevailed as the Word of God wielded it.

Best.


428 posted on 12/11/2014 10:20:30 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion ( "I didn't leave the Central Oligarchy Party. It left me." - Ronaldus Maximus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: dsc
It’s funny how willing you are to accept the words of men, if they contradict Scripture and the Church.

It IS funny; isn't it!

These are CATHOLIC 'men' quoted: the CHURCH fathers.

Why do YOU not accept their words?

Are you your own pope?

429 posted on 12/11/2014 12:56:57 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; dsc
At every turn, the Savior referred to what was “written”.

God inspired men to write His message over millennia.

Isn't it FUNNY how that worked out?

430 posted on 12/11/2014 12:58:15 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: dsc

So far you’re a wool vendor, and the truth is back-ordered decades.


431 posted on 12/11/2014 1:08:52 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

>> “Are you your own pope?” <<

.
Could he be planning to run for pope?

Dr. Steve did once!
.


432 posted on 12/11/2014 1:11:40 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; teppe
Could he be planning to run for pope?

Dr. Steve did once!

Joseph Smith planned to run for President.

Would he have been a better one than Obama?




...the presidential campaign of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith in 1844: “Challenging Democrat James Polk and Whig Henry Clay, Smith prophesied that if the U.S. Congress did not accede to his demands that ‘they shall be broken up as a government and God shall damn them.’

Smith viewed capturing the presidency as part of the mission of the church.


 The death of Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844
Carthage, IL

 
Over all; it was a BAD year for ol' Joe!

433 posted on 12/11/2014 2:18:47 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
 
 

JESUS: Hey Smith! Remember that boast you made about doing more than even I had done to hold the 'church' together?

JOSEPH SMITH: Where am I?

JESUS: Don't you remember? A few seconds ago you were in that jail.

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah; but where am I NOW?

JESUS: Don't you remember? Does bang - bang ring a bell?

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah - that crummy gun I had was about USELESS!

JESUS: I hope you left instructions on how to hold your church together.

JOSEPH SMITH: Dang! I knew there was SOMETHING I was forgetting!

JESUS: Looks like there's a power struggle going on down there.

JOSEPH SMITH: Yeah; there was always SOMEone who wanted the power that I held - especially over the LADIES - wink wink.

JESUS: No need to worry about that now; remember what my friend Matthew wrote down?

JOSEPH SMITH: This? “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30)

JESUS: That's it.

JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.

JESUS: Nah - it was right.

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh well; it was fun while it lasted. My buds will still get it on with the girls.

JESUS: Uh; I'm sorry; in just a few more years; your followers will cavein to the United States government and abandon the 'Eternal Covenant' that you came up with.

JOSEPH SMITH: ME!? YOU are the one that told me to do that!

JESUS: Sorry; but you must have mistranslated what I told you. What part of Do NOT commit ADULTERY did you not understand?

JOSEPH SMITH: mumble....

JESUS: What did you say?

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, nothing.

JESUS: Well; it was interesting talking to you; but now I must get back to perparing a place for those who believe in Me.

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, yeah; the Celestial Kingdom.

JESUS: No...

JOSEPH SMITH: The Telestial one?

JESUS: Nope.

JOSEPH SMITH: SUREly not the TERRESTRIAL one!!

JESUS: Nope. Didn't you read that the mind of man had NOT conceived of it? Paul wrote it down in 1 Corinthians 2:9.

JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.

JESUS: No; it wasn't.

JOSEPH SMITH: You SURE?

JESUS: Yes. Now I must be going: what did you say your name was again?

JOSEPH SMITH: Joseph Smith.

JESUS: Hmmmm. According to my Heavenly FAITHbook, you didn't sign in as one of my friends - sorry, I never knew you.

JOSEPH SMITH: But....


434 posted on 12/11/2014 2:19:42 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

For Advent: The Prophet’s Birth

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2964782/posts


435 posted on 12/11/2014 2:21:09 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

436 posted on 12/11/2014 2:23:57 PM PST by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Oh you are now into mind reading and telling me what I know?”

If you are referring to message 422, I responded to your statement, “I’m know Catholics refrain from staying with scripture for their doctrines and beliefs and consider other “communications” to be equal but they are not.”

I assume you meant to write “I know Catholics refrain from staying with scripture for their doctrines and beliefs and consider other “communications” to be equal but they are not.”

I don’t think any “mind-reading” is involved there. Just reading what you wrote.

If you are referring to message 426, a quick look reveals that I did not tell you what you know, but what you have been told many times.

I would say it is something you should know by now, but you continue to insist upon the opposite. Now, if I were to speculate on your motives for that, I would likely be reprimanded, despite the fact that motives are often made clear by a person’s remarks.


437 posted on 12/12/2014 8:22:25 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-437 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson