I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I think Pope Leo XIII in 1878-1903 did not have all the facts concerning the makeup of the fetus. To say "the flesh and blood of the virgin, since the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary", shows an ignorance of biology. The egg from the woman's ovary is a distinct cell containing her genetic code (DNA) having 23 chromosomes. The sperm from the father also contains DNA and 23 chromosomes and together they create a distinct individual that never before existed and never will exist again. The baby needs only nourishment and a safe environment (from the mother, of course) to develop to term. He has his own flesh and blood quite different from the mother's and is totally separate in form. They are "hooked up" through the umbilical cord through which the baby receives nutrients and oxygen.
With Jesus, there was no human father sperm to fertilize the ovum and that was the miraculous part, as well, but he still had flesh and blood that was different from Mary's - it was all his own. I don't blame Pope Leo for this, of course, because the scientific understanding of human reproduction and genetics was only in its infancy (no pun intended). But it also brings up the question of the infallibility of the Popes and whether or not they are influenced by the Holy Spirit when they make such statements. I doubt highly that God was not aware of the facts of life.
BB,You’re overreaching . If there was no DNA in Christ that came from Mary than Christ would not be fully man
Wow what an admission, Catholics do not get the actual flesh and blood of jesus at communion..they get the flesh and blood of Mary .... now I understand why she is so worshiped
And His DNA was 1/2 from Mary's chromosomes.
The baby needs only nourishment and a safe environment (from the mother, of course) to develop to term.
For nine months, under her skin, inside her uterus.
He has his own flesh and blood quite different from the mother's and is totally separate in form.
But of course, with half her DNA.
They are "hooked up" through the umbilical cord through which the baby receives nutrients and oxygen.
Nutrients from what she eats, oxygen from her breath, again for 9 months.
No matter how proddies try to diminish Mary, she was hardly incidental to Christ's life.
Thank you for explaining that, but which relates to two more things.
One is that, as pointed out before, Mary was begotten by a sinner and sinners going back to Adam, and the idea that God required a sinless vessel to beget the word made flesh is no more warranted than holding that the Divinely inspired word of God required sinless holy men. As was also pointed out before. And so if the Eucharist is eating Mary's flesh it is to some degree consuming Adam's.
The second is that of the confusion over what is considered binding in Catholicism. The Infallible Magisterium considered all teaching to to be assuredly infallible when spoken in accordance with her infallible defined formula. While the AIM does a type of unity based upon assent of faith to infallible teaching, which all the teachings are that infallible as well as what they mean is open to interpretation. With some pronouncements it is quite evident and accepted that the criteria for infallibly has been fulfilled, although there is disagreement how many times. One Roman Catholic apologist will hold that the Pope has spoken ex cathedra twice while another believes it has been four. Of all teaching, it has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined.”
Others argue for more, such as Orthodox who postulate such based upon the statement by Bishop Vincent Gasser, who stated, "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;" Gasser was spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), who delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. Gasser stated is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility.
As for FIdentem Piumque Animum, the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the rosary, if the science is not right then the theology is not. But this is a m,atter of interpretation. As for its infallibility,
Humani Generis, #20, states,
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Which presumes clarity, or a degree of such, part or whole, that precludes charges of ambiguity.