Clauso Utero

There is no Catholic Church dogma that Mary's womb had to have been closed. Mary's virginity was not violated, but sanctified by the word of God. She was a virgin before the birth and after, just as Holy Scripture prophecied. "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son".

 

However, to say that Jesus birth violated Mary's virginity would contradict Holy Scripture. "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son". Mary had a virgin conception and birth of Jesus Christ according to Holy Scripture which was prophecied and is miraculous.

 

DHK,

You really believe those verses apply to the traditions and writings of Ulrich Zwingli? You may have never heard of him, but you follow his teachings and interpretations of the Bible. He pioneered the "symbolic baptism". You know, the one that rips baptism right out of the context of the New Covenant and divine sonship of Christ, and our adoption as sons of God.

If your interested I can take you right through the covenants of the Bible and the family of God. Or we can do an inductive Bible study on Hebrews.

 

What causes you to think of Zwingli. He was one of the reformers, prominent in Switzerland.
The verses I quoted were directed at the damnable heresies (as the Bible describes them) of the Catholic Church: Mariolotry, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, confession of sins to a priest, transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, etc. These are damnable heresies. These heresies are what both Luther and Zwingli opposed vehemently.

History of the Baptists
DHK

 

I found "Baptist Ways: A History" by Bill J. Leonard, Edwin S. Gaustad to be a fairly good read.

As your quote points out,
"The leader in this reformation was Ulric Zwingli"

Zwingli founded an interpretive movement. The quote also points out something else important: Splits usually start on political grounds. Anti-Catholics love to use Bart Brewer as an example of an ex-priest, yet his split started not because of doctrinal problems, but because he no longer wanted to keep his vow of celibacy, made by his own choice. ("Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by Keating, cf. "Evangelicals and Catholics", Moody Magazine, November 1993)

An excellent short introduction to the sale of indulgences is Karl Adams "Roots of the Reformation" or the short article provided by catholic.com

Mariolotry, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, confession of sins to a priest, transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration

Mariolotry is a damnable heresy, as confirmed by the Catholic Church. Your understanding of purgatory would probably be "damnable", thankfully the Church differs on what it is, confession and the divine intercession Jesus offers through the New Covenant are two different things, the mass is not a re-sacrifice, and baptismal regeneration cannot be understood in the business atmosphere of a Baptist Church, but the covenant theology Jesus lived and taught.

 

In describing Clauso Utero you say:

You say this is Catholic dogma and is the same as Clauso Utero, and ask:

There is nothing in Holy Scripture that Jesus passed through Mary's intact abdomen. Mary must bear him and be a virgin according to prophecy.

To say that Jesus Christ passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them does not violate Holy Scripture. Remember, a virgin will conceive and bear a son. She gives birth. She has a virgin birth. Jesus Christ passed through the birth canal without violating Mary's virginity. Her uterus and hymen could have been open just enough for the light of the world to pass through without violating her virginity and still fulfill Holy Scripture.

There is no reason to say her uterus and hymen was "closed" and Jesus exited her "intact abdomen". It also violates Holy Scripture if Mary did not bear her son as a virgin. There are serious problems with bypassing the birth canal that has a natural opening. A virgin will conceive and bear a son. This is miraculous.

[ May 09, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

Use your head here Adam. The Reformation was anything but political. It was religious in nature. The Reformation, as its name says was a movement to reform the Catholic Church--a religion that was and is heretical. The reformers thought that they could correct these heresies from within the church, so they didn't leave. Instead they preached against the church heresies from within church, and were themselves declared heretics and cast out, burned alive, martyred, etc. Politics? Church politics--maybe.
The Reformers were called Protestants becaused they protested against the damnable heresies that the Catholic Church was teaching. Luther nailed his 95 theses on the church door, firmly stating the heresies of the Catholic Church. Zwingli testified to many of the same. Both, in their personal testimony abohorred the selling of indulgences. This is not political. Indulgences had nothing to do with politics.

Then they should stop practicing it.

A Muslim and a Buddhist might differ on what it is too. You also might differ with me on the color of black and white, or green and blue. That doesn't matter, and neither do your opinions. We have but one standard. Our standard is the Word of God--the Bible. It is not the Catholic Church, not the Magesterium, not the Pope, not Oral Tradtion, not any other authority. It is the Bible. The doctrine of purgatory is not found in the Bible. It is a damnable heresy. I will challenge you or any other Catholic (as I have in the past) to prove purgatory using the Scriptures alone. Don't just post Scriptures that might explain the possibility. I have seen that already. Explain using the Scriptures the existence of Purgatory with a proper exegesis of Scripture.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hebrews 4:15-16 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The only mediator we have is Christ. The only one that we need to confess any sin to is God. We can go straight before the throne of grace in prayer and in confession of sin. There is no need for a priest. In fact it is heretical to go to a priest for confession, for that nullifies the work that Christ did. The heresies of the Catholic Church continue to throw insult in the face of Christ, and degrade what He has done for them, in effect denying the very sacrificial work of Christ.

Are you putting words in my mouth or what? I called it for what it is. It is "the sacrifice of the mass." That is the term that all use--Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Baptismal regeneration can be understood for the heresy for what it is, and always has been--that baptism is part of your salvation, and without it you cannot be saved. I debated this with Catholic Convert and others. I know what the Catholic Church teaches. "Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Ask any Catholic--to be born again is to baptized under Catholic theology. That is serious heresy.
DHK

 

[snipped]

[ May 09, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

As usual I think we have become bogged down in semantics and wandered off into this mystical view of the virgin birth.

I think the issue is much more simple. Mary was a virgin because she had never had sexual relations. That is the normal sense of the word and totally fits scripture. To try and make virginity apply to all of Mary's birth process is an unnecessary complication that has no Bible basis. This is the kind of extra-biblical theology that detracts from the simplicity of God's Word.

A virgin miraculously conceived and she was still a virgin when she gave birth. Why complicate things?

 

John you like to speak erroneously for the Catholic Church. Your thread here is not about Catholic teaching, but you keep trying to make it. Catholics doctine is that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son". Her virginity was not violated by Jesus birth, it was sanctified by the Word of God. We believe the virgin bore Jesus Christ as prophecied in Holy Scripture. Her virginity remained intact. It was a virgin birth. You can claim she did not remain intact, but that is not Catholic teaching and is not the teaching of the Church fathers. We accept the virgin birth that was prophecied.

 

The Catholic Church does not opine that the tokens of Mary’s virginity did not remain completely intact during the birth of Jesus . They did remain completely intact. It was a virgin birth.


As far as:

There is nothing here about Jesus exiting via a closed abdomen. You originally asked if Jesus left the womb via a closed abdomen and not the birth canal. “Was Jesus born in the normal way by passing through Mary's birth canal? Or, was Jesus born in a miraculous way by passing through Mary's intact abdomen?” There is nothing here about passing through an “intact abdomen”.

According to Holy Scripture Jesus Christ is born of a virgin. In female anatomy the womb has a natural opening. The Hymen is not a complete seal. There is a birth canal. A girl has only a partly closed uterus. That is how the sperm gets in. A doctor can enter the womb for a physical exam without breaking the hymen and violating a girl's virginity, and I trust that Jesus Christ could do likewise in an even more perfect manner.

Hymen:
Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek hymEn membrane
: a fold of mucous membrane partly closing the orifice of the vagina

There is no need to say that Jesus exited via a "closed abdomen" and not the birth canal. It violates Holy Scripture to say that Mary did not give birth, but Jesus exited some other way on his own. Mary gave birth and was a virgin. I have more of a problem with your interpretation than what is actually written here. I hope this helps.

 

Having the hymen intact and being a virgin have nothing to do with each other.

I seriously doubt that ANY healthy baby could pass through the birth canal without destroying the hymen (which still left Mary a virgin) since she had not 'been with a man'...

I find it hard to believe we have wasted so much time on a subject that is so simple and of relatively little importance to my belief system.

The RCC wants to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin. This is impossible since the Bible tells us that she had children with Joseph after Jesus was born.

I don't understand the confusion here.

 

This 'Causo Utero' theory must have happened a total of at least seven times. First, Jesus, then James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, plus two or more sisters were born to Mary. Jesus was born of a virgin and he had brothers and sisters who came after Him.

This may be recorded in the other Gospels other than Matthew 13:57, but this passage clearly states that Jesus had ' . . . great wisdom and did miracles' in His own town, which would be where His half-brothers and sisters would have lived with Joseph and Mary. I do not think we know at this point whether Joseph would have still been living, but he did leave on earth his posterity. Probably Joseph was still living at this time, because of the number of children that came from this union with Mary, except, of course, our Lord.

The Biblical view is that Jesus was born of a natural birth as were his siblings. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of those magical spins that the Roman Catholic Church has pronounced, via one of the popes and/or the magisterium.

The fact that the virgin mother had other children does not detract from the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin maiden. The Prophet Isaiah makes us aware of the fact that Mary would 'bear a son . . .' [7:14] The Hebrew word for 'bare' can mean to bear young, to act as midwife, birth, calve, to deliver of a child, hatch, to be the son of a woman, traviling, etc. The word is 'yawlad or yalad.'