Theotokos and Labor Pains

[Liudmilla]

Why is it so difficult to accept that Mary's virginity was preserved because God closed the door after the birth? Would this have been such a difficult thing for him? Christ was born as a man into this world. I was always taught that he restored everything to it's original condition after his birth. Why is this concept so hard to accept?
Why is it so hard to believe Mary had no labor pains? She was after all giving birth to the Son of GOD?!?! If she was special enough for this task, why would God have made it difficult for her?
Com'on guys where is your child's faith?

[Anastasios]

I am not denying that the hymen could have remained intact. But who the heck cares. That is not the point of Orthodoxy. I merely stated the birth was natural.

anastasios

[Anastasios]

One further point.

Nik, let's see the quotes in context please. Again I am not denying anything per se but I would like us to examine the actual quotes.

I also would like to challenge this a bit. Basically, I think some people make an issue out of something that is not an issue, and focus on the whole wrong point. The POINT of the whole reflection is that Mary is a virgin and that Christ was not born of a human father. So the Church Fathers used the image of the "seal unbroken" to point that out, just like they said the apostles flew on clouds to be with Mary at her Dormition. COME ON, God does NOT need to put people on clouds--obviously he could zap the Apostles and make them be there lickety split. IMAGERY IMAGERY IMAGERY. We must not be patristic fundamenalists, twisting the fathers to fit our predilections. Again, do I deny that Mary was unbroken? No. But would it destory my faith if --oh no-- she were? NO! The fact that people arguing about this is so disturbing to me. It is totally removing the whole argument from its context and focusing on the details as if they in and of themselves were a subject of reflection.

Some will say, "should we not have child faith?" Yes, of course we should. But that does not mean running around focusing on this stuff as if it were on par with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The focus is OFF. CHRIST is the focus, not a piece of skin. Does that sound vulgar? I hope not. It's not my intention. But it is the reality of what we are talking about. Just because I know people like to take my words out of context, I will REITERATE that I do not deny that Mary is unbroken because if the fathers said it I believe it (pending examination of the quotes in context which Nik will provide). I just really get irked when it is presented the way some here are presenting it.

anastasios

[Seraphim Reeves]

I also would like to challenge this a bit. Basically, I think some people make an issue out of something that is not an issue, and focus on the whole wrong point. The POINT of the whole reflection is that Mary is a virgin and that Christ was not born of a human father. So the Church Fathers used the image of the "seal unbroken" to point that out, just like they said the apostles flew on clouds to be with Mary at her Dormition. COME ON, God does NOT need to put people on clouds--obviously he could zap the Apostles and make them be there lickety split. IMAGERY IMAGERY IMAGERY. We must not be patristic fundamenalists, twisting the fathers to fit our predilections. Again, do I deny that Mary was unbroken? No. But would it destory my faith if --oh no-- she were? NO! The fact that people arguing about this is so disturbing to me. It is totally removing the whole argument from its context and focusing on the details as if they in and of themselves were a subject of reflection.

The only person "arguing" anything here is you.

Seraphim

[Methodius]

That's not a question we can answer. The hymns say "no". Whether she did in "reality" is not even an issue.

None of the gospel writers was around when she gave birth!

Jesus was born the normal way, just like the rest of us.

Orthodox are fond of saying there was no immaculate conception because Mary is just like us. She most certainly gave birth in the same way.

But let's not say she delivered miraculously--that is what the heretic Docetists taught

Of course James, the brother of our Lord probably was there.

Where were you taught these things?

[Mor Ephrem]

Jesus was born the normal way, just like the rest of us. Orthodox are fond of saying there was no immaculate conception because Mary is just like us. She most certainly gave birth in the same way. She was ever-virgin though. The fathers say she felt no labor pains. I believe it. But let's not say she delivered miraculously--that is what the heretic Docetists taught--that Jesus passed through Mary like water through a pipe, they said.

anastasios

I apologise in advance for the not-as-delicate-as-I-would've-liked nature of this post.

While I have no real problem with the idea that there were no labour pains (although I would like to know why this is taught by the Fathers in preference to the idea that Mary, as a biologically normal woman, would've given birth in the normal way), I have always wondered what about giving birth renders a woman a non-virgin in Orthodox teaching, since the Orthodox teaching is that she remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. The Mother of God conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit AS A VIRGIN. So what about her giving birth normally would have made her NOT A VIRGIN? Is it simply that the hymen would not have remained intact in a normal birth? Fine, but an intact hymen, as we all know now, does not a virgin make. A hymen can be broken without a woman ever having had sex. Is it that the hymen was needed back then in order to verify virginity? Fine, but where is it recorded anywhere in Christian literature that this was ever verified in the case of the Mother of God? We know that Mary is ever-Virgin. In order to emphasise the point emphatically, we say that she was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. But, really, how does one cease to be a virgin by the process of giving birth, if one has conceived virginally? And, in the long run, why is this type of speculation even necessary if we affirm the Orthodox teaching on the virginity of Mary?

[尼古拉前执事]

Per request, the Fathers of the Church on the Church Tradition on the Nativity of our Lord:

"It was a birth that surpassed the established order of birth-giving, as it was without pain; for, where pleasure had not preceded, pain did not follow. And just as at His conception He had kept her who conceived Him virgin, so also at His birth did He maintain her virginity intact, because He alone passed through her and kept her shut."

"While the conception was by 'hearing', the birth was by the usual orifice through which children are born, even though there are some who concoct an idle tale of His being born from the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to pass through the gate without breaking its seals. Hence, the Ever-Virgin remained a virgin even after giving birth and never had converse with a husband as long as she lived:

-Saint John of Damascus

"Why is it hard to believe that that Mary gave birth in a way contrary to the law of natural birth and remained a virgin, when contrary to the law of nature the sea looked at Him and fled, and the waters of the Jordan returned to their source [Ps. 113:3]? Is it past belief that a virgin gave birth when we read that a rock issued water [Ex. 17:6], and the waves of the sea were made solid as a wall [Ex. 14:22]? Is it past belief that a Man came from a virgin when a rock bubbled forth a flowing stream [Ex. 20:11], iron floated on water [4 Kings 6:6], a Man walked upon the waters [Mt. 14:26]? If the waters bore a Man, could not a virgin give birth to a man? What Man? Him Whom we read, "... the Lord shall be known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and they shall offer sacrifices, and shall vow vows to the Lord, and pay them.' [Is. 19:20]

"In the Old Testament a Hebrew virgin (Miriam) led an army through the sea [Ex. 15:21]; in the New Testament a king's daughter (the Virgin Mary) was chosen to be the heavenly entrance to salvation."

Then, the deep was trodden dry-shod by Israel, now Christ is born seedlessly of the Virgin. The sea, after the passage of Israel, remained untrodden: the blameless one, after the birth of Emmanuel, remained undefiled.

"A virgin carried Him Whom the world the world cannot contain or support. And when He was born of Mary's womb, He yet preserved the enclosure of her modesty, and the inviolate seal of her virginity."

-Saint Ambrose

I can post more later if you like too. You can learn more about the Nativity of out Lord in The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos

(Now I feel like a narrator of Reading Rainbow! LOL!)