Kosta wrote : Jo, I am trying to think like a Catholic. :)
I will presume that the smiley face at the end nullifies the implied comment that Catholics contradict themselves... Sorry if I appear cautious, I've been "away" at some other sites where the name calling towards Catholics is NOT so subtle...
As you know, whether Mary felt child pains OR whether she died are matters of opinion, not dogma.
In order to maintain her virginity, she would not have given Birth by ordinary means through an open birth canal.
Virginity, metaphysically and spiritually speaking, is not defined as giving birth through the birth canal. Otherwise, women with C-sections are considered virgins! No doubt, lack of virginity refers to the addition of a man in a child's conception. Thus, there is not a need to define "virginity" as "opening the birth canal" as Mary's conception of Jesus was a singular event that will not be repeated. We don't define by the exception.
And if we can believe that God became Incarnate within her without a seed or carnal event, then it is equally valid to presume that the Birth was equally a mystery that did not violate her in any way.
I agree, and we should thus maintain this as a matter of opinion, WHILE maintaining consistency all the while. IF Mary died, then "sin" would not be the reason why Mary avoided birth pains. However, I do not make the connection of virginity to giving birth. Thus, I don't see the need to say that Mary, to maintain virginity, MUST have underwent a painless childbirth.
Besides, if she gave birth in the conventional manner, her blood would have mixed with the Blood of Her Child(!), and a normal human birth would have spilled that precious Blood, desecrating it!
It's a known medical fact that the baby and the mother have different blood. Often, they even have different blood types. And how do you suppose the umbilical cord was cut? I think some people go a bit too far to protect the divinity of Christ and forgetting that He took on a human nature, one that includes sweating, crying and bleeding.
You are free to speculate, of course, but -- from an Orthodox point of view -- Mary's painless and mystical birth has nothing whatsoever to do with her being "second Eve."
I don't believe I made that point. I myself hold to the Immaculate Conception and the New Eve - while believing that Mary underwent a normal birth (having pain). Refering to the Second Eve points to her Immaculate Conception, a dogma, not to her painless child birthing of Jesus, an opinion.
If there is any contradiction in my statements, it was because I was making the argument from the Catholic point of view. :)
Two such comments in one post? Hmm. I've been insulted more directly before... The contradictions are based on one who claims Mary suffered no pain at childbirth - refering to Genesis and sin - while at the same time, claiming Mary died - again pointing to Genesis and sin. Is sin the reason woman suffer child birth pain? Is sin the reason why humans suffer death? Thus, your contradiction.
The Latin Church also teaches that her Birth was painless, which would, by necessity suggest that she was also immortal.
I am relatively well-versed in Catholicism and have not heard that one yet. It must not be a "well-circulated" teaching, maybe reserved for those of the curia. If true, it is obviously theological opinion, not an ordinary teaching of the Magesterium. It certainly is not in the Catechism.
Regards
In fact I will not reply to your post.