THE VIRGINITAS IN PARTU

Before she was in labor she gave birth;
before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.
Who ever heard of such a thing, or who ever saw the like?
Can a land be brought forth in one day,
or a nation be born in a single moment?
Yet Zion was scarcely in labor when she bore her children.
Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth,
and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD.
Or shall I who bring to birth yet close her womb?
says your God.
Isaiah 66, 7-9

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
Luke 2, 4-7

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is recognized as one of the four Marian dogmas within the Catholic Church. This doctrine, similar to the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, is considered a fundamental belief that stems from the first Marian dogma, which asserts that Mary is the Mother of God. This title is rooted in the divinity of her firstborn Son, who is hypostatically united with humanity. Scriptural references, such as Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:35 and 43, John 1:14, and Colossians 2:9, affirm Mary’s role as the mother of the Divine Logos incarnate. The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity posits that she remained a virgin throughout her life, a view upheld despite her marriage to Joseph and the societal norms of that era. This dogma emphasizes her unique role in salvation history and the sanctity of her motherhood.

Mary is traditionally viewed as a virgin at the time of Jesus’s conception, during his birth, and after giving birth. This belief has been held by Catholics since the early days of the Church. The nature of Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit is often likened to a spiritual marriage, reminiscent of the relationship between YHWH and Israel (Isa 54:5; Jer 31:31-33; Hosea 2:19-20), emphasizing its moral significance. It is believed that Mary chose to remain chaste throughout her life and to maintain continence in her marriage, influenced by the Holy Spirit from a young age. This highlights her role as a spiritually selected vessel, as indicated in Luke 1:35, suggesting she was chosen for this unique position from all eternity.

The text discusses the theological concept of a covenantal relationship between God and Mary, emphasizing its significance akin to a marital covenant. It suggests that this partnership reflects the integral nature of life and serves the dual purpose of mutual good and procreation. Much like a man and woman become one flesh in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to fulfill God’s purpose, the text posits that the Holy Spirit and Mary achieved a moral unity in their unique relationship, aligned with Divine moral law. This bond is presented as a divine proposal from God to Mary, who was described as a young girl living and serving in the Temple at the time of this extraordinary calling.

The text discusses the concept of Mary as a virgin bride and her role in the divine plan. It suggests that her union with Him was intended not only for the birth of the holy Child but also for the spiritual regeneration of all believers. This process is described as being reborn in the Spirit, referencing scriptures such as John 3:3 and Romans 8:29. Furthermore, it asserts that all members of Christ’s Mystical Body can be seen as the subsequent children of Mary, joining the spiritual family of God that surpasses natural familial connections, as indicated in Mark 3:31-35. These individuals are considered the offspring of the “free promised woman,” with allusions to Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:17.

The concept of divine grace suggests that Mary felt a strong calling to remain chaste throughout her life, allowing her to devote herself more entirely to God in both body and spirit. After becoming the mother of Jesus, she was able to concentrate entirely on her son, nurturing and raising him until his public ministry commenced. This pivotal moment marked a transformation in Mary’s role, as her motherhood became spiritually significant for all of humanity, particularly for those who would become disciples of Christ, as illustrated in the Gospel of John (2:3-8; 19:26-27).

Mary’s consecration to God occurred at a young age, marking a significant spiritual commitment that she may not have fully understood at the time. It is believed that she was divinely chosen to become the mother of Jesus, a role preordained by God before her conception. This selection highlights God’s intention to establish a covenant with Mary, similar to the covenants made with Israel. To prepare her for this unique role, God ensured that Mary was preserved from original sin and its associated moral impacts, such as desires of the flesh and pride.

According to tradition, God sanctified her soul at the moment of her conception, granting her an abundance of grace, referred to in Scripture as “kecharitomene.” This special grace equipped her to fulfill her role as the mother of the Son of God and to serve as the pure bride of the Holy Spirit, as indicated in Luke 1:28. Furthermore, her covenant with God entailed a shared moral and spiritual harmony, suggesting that she lived a life elevated by grace, distinct from the fallen human condition alluded to in scriptures such as Leviticus 20:26 and Ezekiel 16:8-14.

In the Gospel of St. Luke, Mary is depicted as a counterpart to the pure and undefiled Ark of the Covenant, drawing connections to Old Testament scriptures such as Exodus and 2 Samuel. The Ark was consecrated by God and considered exceedingly holy; it was so sacred that anyone who attempted to touch it without prior ritual purification would face dire consequences, as illustrated in 2 Samuel 6:6-7. This divine sanctification emphasized the Ark’s role as God’s physical dwelling, constructed according to divine specifications, and highlighted the strict prohibition against anything profane coming into contact with it.

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the significance of Mary’s womb, describing it as a sacred shrine infused by the Holy Spirit (Shekinah) and a dwelling place for God the Son incarnate. He argues that it would be inappropriate for this holy sanctuary to be used for the conception and birth of ordinary sinful offspring from the tainted seed of man (Summa Theologica, III, Q.28, a. 3). As a devout Jew, Joseph likely held a profound respect for Mary’s womb, akin to the reverence he would have had for the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. He would not have dared to enter the Holy of Holies, recognizing that Mary’s womb served as God’s personal sanctuary rather than just a commonplace space (Isa. 66:1).

Engaging in marital relations within the sacred institution of marriage is considered morally acceptable and a positive aspect of a relationship blessed by God. In contrast, pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relations are generally seen as violations of divine principles, as they go against the intended guidelines for relationships between men and women. To illustrate this idea, one can compare a marriage to a jewel chest, which is well-suited to storing valuable jewels. However, placing these jewels in a sacred place like the Ark of the Covenant could be seen as inappropriate given the significance and sanctity of that space.

In the context of the biblical figure Joseph, it is understood that he recognized the gravity of engaging in sexual relations with Mary after she had conceived through the Holy Spirit. Such an act would not only be seen as inappropriate but also as morally wrong, given the unique circumstances surrounding her pregnancy with the divine Son of God. Joseph’s awareness of this situation highlights the importance of understanding the nature of marital relations within the framework of religious teachings.

In a theological context, Mary is often viewed as being committed to God like a bride. This concept is illustrated by the idea that she was “overshadowed” by the power or authority of the Most High God, which can be understood as a Hebrew euphemism for marital relations. This signifies that Mary was under God’s rule and authority, akin to the relationship between a wife and her husband, as defined by Divine ordinance. Consequently, as God’s chosen spouse, she held an exclusive moral connection to Him, paralleling the dynamic between Adam and Eve, where Eve was also under her husband’s authority, as expressed in Genesis 3:16.

And the angel of the Lord appeared to him
in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush;
and he looked, and lo, the bush was burning,
yet it was not consumed.
Exodus 3, 2

The Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary asserts that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. This belief encompasses three key aspects: she was a virgin before (antepartum), during (in partu), and after (post-partum) the birth of Jesus Christ. In terms of her virginity before and after Jesus’s birth, the conventional understanding of the term “virgin” implies that Mary did not have sexual relations with her spouse, Joseph, at any time. However, when discussing Mary’s virginity in the context of giving birth to Jesus, it is essential to note that Catholics do not suggest that she abstained from marital relations with Joseph during her pregnancy or at the time of Jesus’s birth. This nuanced understanding highlights the depth and significance of her role within the Catholic faith.

The Catholic Church has maintained a longstanding belief regarding the birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary. According to Church teachings from the earliest times, it is believed that Mary’s physical integrity as a virgin remained intact during Jesus’ birth. This perspective asserts that there was no rupture of the hymen, no physical pain or discomfort typically associated with labor, and no water, blood, placenta, or umbilical cord. This doctrine emphasizes that Mary’s bodily integrity remained inviolate, aligning with her spiritual purity. The Church teaches that no natural or profane element involved in the birth could compromise her purity or the sanctity of her son, who is considered free from original sin. Thus, the belief holds that Mary’s giving birth did not involve any elements that would defile her or her Holy Child.

The Mother and the Son were both preserved from the corrupting effects of original sin. Therefore, the birth of Jesus was as extraordinary and miraculous as his conception, which occurred through the action of the Holy Spirit. The entire process of the Son of Man’s formation did not involve any male seed from humanity, which descends from the fallen Adam. Consequently, all aspects considered impure within the natural act of procreation—ranging from the moment the male seed fertilizes an ovum to the eventual birth of the child—were prevented by Divine intervention as a result of Eve’s transgression and the subsequent fall of mankind. The timing of Mary’s delivery and the birth of her Son were predetermined by God, occurring before she entered into the typical physical labor associated with childbirth.

The conception of Jesus within the Virgin Mary is understood in Christian theology to uphold her virginal integrity. According to this belief, the holy presence of God in her womb did not compromise her purity in any way. Furthermore, it is believed that Jesus, being divine, was not subject to the corrupt elements associated with the birth process that could render him ritually impure. This concept is significant because it relates to his presentation in the Temple and the requirement of circumcision as outlined by ceremonial law. Mary is often called the bride of YHWH (God), symbolizing a profound connection between the Divine and humanity. This relationship is emphasized in Genesis 3:15, which depicts a state of enmity between Mary (as the Mother of Christ) and the serpent, representing evil. The Gospel of Luke 1:42 further highlights this unique bond, noting that Mary and her Son are exceptionally blessed through their shared mission against sin and its works.

The distinction between the sacred and the profane, as well as between Divine holiness and various forms of corruption, is established due to the presence of sin. A prominent example of this is the burning bush, which was enveloped in flames yet remained unconsumed, symbolizing God’s direct presence. This event illustrates that anything sanctified by God’s presence cannot be subject to decay or corruption; rather, it becomes holy. In the biblical account, God instructed Moses to remove his sandals before approaching the burning bush, emphasizing that even the ground surrounding it was made holy by God’s manifestation (Exodus 3:5). The soil on Moses’ sandals was implicitly viewed as impure because the Divine presence had not directly touched it. Similarly, in the context of the Temple, it was required that no Jew, not even the High Priest, could enter the Holy of Holies without undergoing ritual purification to maintain the sanctity of that sacred space.

The concept of the Divine Logos, represented by Jesus, emphasizes the sanctification of His mother’s womb during His presence there, preserving the sanctity of her body at the moment ordained by the Father for His birth. The notion of physical corruption in creation stems from the original sin of Adam and Eve, which resulted in the loss of humanity’s original grace of holiness and justice. The Blessed Virgin Mary holds a unique place in this context, as she was preserved from all stains of original sin through the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This exemption placed her outside the law of sin introduced by Eve, as she was chosen to be the mother of the Divine Messiah. This belief highlights Mary’s exceptional status; she is regarded as the most blessed among women, and her son, Jesus, is equally esteemed as the blessed fruit of her womb in His humanity.

The Virginitas In Partu, or virginity during birth, has been an integral part of the Apostolic Tradition within the Catholic Church since its inception. As the Church Fathers and Doctors conveyed, the teachings regarding Mary’s virginal birth have been faithfully transmitted (paradosis) from the Apostles through oral tradition. Notably, St. Irenaeus, who served as Bishop of Lyon, was a student of Bishop St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle St. John. It is believed that Mary lived with St. John until approximately A.D. 48, as referenced in the Gospel of John (19:27). In the second century, Irenaeus provided a testament to the Apostolic Faith, writing: “The Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man—the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God” (Against Heresies 4, 33, 12). This highlights the significance of Mary’s virgin birth within Christian doctrine.

In the Gospel of John, the Evangelist states, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt (eskenosen) among us” (1:14). The Greek verb “eskenosen” is derived from the root word “skene,” which translates to “tent” or “tabernacle.” This term is reminiscent of the portable tent that housed the Ark of the Covenant before King Solomon, David’s son, constructed the First Temple. In this context, it can be understood that Mary’s most sacred womb, the Blessed Mother, served as a unique tabernacle for the presence of the Lord. Her womb is viewed as a holy sanctuary, a dwelling place for God comparable to, if not more significant than, the Temple’s inner sanctuary. The incarnation of God occurred within Mary’s womb through the divine intervention of the Holy Spirit. Following the birth of Jesus, Mary’s husband, Joseph, could not open her womb, akin to how the High Priest was permitted to enter the Temple sanctuary, where the Ark was kept, only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This illustrates the profound significance of God’s absolute holiness, which was to be revered and respected.

Irenaeus deeply understood the Book of Isaiah, enabling him to interpret certain verses as having Messianic significance within a Christian framework. He portrays the Virgin Mary as the antitype of Yahweh’s virgin bride, Daughter Zion, from whom redeemed offspring are born and spiritually regenerated after being freed from the bondage of sin, often symbolized by Babylon. According to Irenaeus, God will unexpectedly enter the world through His virgin bride, Mary, without causing the typical birth pains or harm to her. This emphasizes that the one who comes to heal humanity from the disorder of sin will not contribute to the consequences of sin. In this context, it is also asserted that he who offers himself as the sole solution for sin cannot subject his mother, referred to as the new Eve, to the same fate as Eve, whose transgression impacted all women. As such, the Virgin Mary is recognized as the “most blessed” among women in Luke 1:42.

Irenaeus drew a significant analogy between Adam and Jesus, whom he called the New Adam, to address Gnostic beliefs. The Gnostics held that Jesus appeared human but did not possess a true human nature. Irenaeus proposed that God’s method for redeeming humanity was through a process known as recapitulation. This process required that the Redeemer share entirely in human nature, like Adam, but with a crucial distinction: unlike Adam, who was formed from tilled soil, the Redeemer had to be conceived of a virgin. For this to occur, the Divine Word needed to be virginally conceived, deriving His flesh and blood from a woman who was a source of untilled soil. In this regard, Mary served as the virgin from whom Jesus was formed through the power of the Holy Spirit. This conception echoed God’s original creation of Adam from untilled, virgin soil, thereby avoiding the tainted paternal seed that would characterize Adam’s descendants after the fall.

In the Christian tradition, it is believed that Jesus Christ was both fully divine and fully human, being born of the Virgin Mary. This doctrine emphasizes that Mary provided a pure and untouched source of flesh for Jesus through a virginal conception. At the time of this miraculous event, Mary had no physical relations with Joseph, paralleling the biblical account of Adam, who was created from untouched soil before the fall. Both Adam and Jesus are seen as fully human, even though they did not have earthly fathers. The belief asserts that Jesus was not merely an illusion of humanity; instead, he was wholly human, just like Adam. This understanding underscores that Mary did not experience the typical pains of childbirth, as she conceived Jesus without sin and without the involvement of a man’s seed. Consequently, both the conception and the birth of Jesus are regarded as miraculous and virginal events, consistent with prophecies such as those found in the book of Isaiah [Against Heresies 3: 21.10: A Vindication of the Prophecy in Isaiah (VII. 14) Against the Misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint Version; arguments in Proof that Christ Was Born of a Virgin].

Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the
east; but it was closed. He said to me: “This gate is to remain closed;
it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God
of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.”
Ezekiel 44, 1- 3

The Universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church has infallibly defined as a de fide doctrine that “at the appropriate time, Jesus left his mother’s womb through the natural channels, but in a miraculous way, just as he had entered it without the least diminution of her virginal integrity” (Lumen Gentium, 57). Jesus was born without in any way opening his mother’s womb, just as the Holy Spirit had overshadowed Mary without opening it. In other words, there was no dilation of the birth canal, no opening of the vagina, and no breaking of the virginal hymen. Jesus passed through the birth canal and entered the world as he had entered the room where his disciples were gathered, with the doors locked (Jn. 20:19).

St. Thomas Aquinas defended the miraculous and painless birth of Christ by using the analogy of light passing through glass, highlighting that it does not cause any damage (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 28, a. 2). He proposed that Jesus emerged from Mary’s womb without physically altering it or harming her virginal integrity. This notion aligns with the belief that Mary served as the pure and perfect Tabernacle for Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the experience of giving birth to her Son was viewed as one that fostered a more profound spiritual communion with God rather than distracting her from divine contemplation due to physical distress or anxiety (tumah). Similarly, St. Augustine emphasized that since Christ was the light of the world and came to “heal corruption,” it was appropriate that his coming did not compromise Mary’s integrity (Sermon 189).

Jesus’s entrance into the world was aimed at redeeming and re-creating humanity, echoing the original creation of Adam, and revitalizing the world. A significant aspect of this re-creation is his mother’s pure womb, which served as the initial act of renewal in the physical realm. This miraculous event is regarded as an eschatological sign, symbolizing the restoration and renewal of creation that accompanies the arrival of the Messiah, a long-anticipated hope within Jewish tradition. Consequently, it is deemed fitting that his mother’s virginal integrity remained intact, allowing for his birth under conditions that transcend the fallen state of humanity and the world.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, writing in 350 A.D., implied that the virginity of Mary remained intact even as she gave birth to her divine Son. In his Catechetical Lecture XII.25, he stated, “For it became Him who is most pure, and a teacher of purity, to have come forth from a pure bride-chamber.” The term “pure bride-chamber” highlights Mary’s unique moral union with the Holy Spirit in the conception of Christ, emphasizing that this event occurred free from sin. Further in the same lecture, St. Cyril discusses how Mary’s virginity and chastity reached their peak during the nine months that she carried Jesus. This moment marked the height of her spiritual and physical purity, as God became incarnate in her womb, sanctifying it with His divine presence. This sanctification can be paralleled to the reverence toward the Tabernacle of the Ark and the Temple in Jerusalem, where divine encounters occurred. Additionally, it is noteworthy that Jesus strongly disapproved of the commercial activities of merchants and money changers in the Temple precincts (Mt 21:12-13), underscoring the importance of purity and sacredness in places dedicated to God.

The Divine Maternity represents a unique aspect of Mary’s glory, attributed to her virginity, bodily purity, and spiritual integrity. This distinction ensures that she is a worthy Mother to our Lord, emphasizing her need to remain perpetually chaste and untouched by sin or corruption. Mary’s purity, both in body and soul, must align entirely with the immaculate nature of her Son, who embodies the new Adam in the fullness of his humanity. Thus, her role as the Mother of Christ is underscored by her exceptional status of purity and holiness.

The concept of Mary as the “Virgin Mother of God” is rooted in her unique role in Christian theology. According to tradition, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, who is often referred to as God’s virginal bride. This belief emphasizes that Jesus was born from “a pure bridal chamber,” free from sin and corruption. Mary is revered for her unwavering purity, which would have been compromised had she given birth to Jesus in the same manner as other women, through the seed of man. Church Fathers, such as Cyril, acknowledged two key aspects of Mary’s identity: her status as the Virgin Mother of God and her role as God’s holy bride throughout her life. Cyril’s teachings, particularly Lecture XII, assert that the birth of Jesus was “pure” and “undefiled.” This supports the belief in the Virginitas In Partu, which posits that Mary’s physical virginity remained intact not only during the miraculous conception of Jesus but also throughout the time she carried Him in her womb. Thus, Mary is recognized as ever-virgin in this theological framework.

Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a
sign: the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel: God with us.
Isaiah 7, 14

And while they were there,
the time came for her to be delivered.
Luke 2, 6

Isaiah prophesied the miraculous birth of Jesus, which was part of God’s divine will. Specifically, Isaiah 7:14 states: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall ‘conceive’ (παρθένος) in the womb, and shall ‘bring forth’ (τέξεται) a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.” This verse comes from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In the original Hebrew, the word “harah” can refer to both the act of conceiving and being pregnant. However, in this context, Isaiah emphasizes “becoming pregnant.” The Septuagint’s interpretation, as referenced in Matthew’s Gospel (1:23), indicates that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. It’s important to note that the Greek word “εννοώ” translates to “to conceive,” strictly indicating the act of becoming pregnant or causing pregnancy.

The concept of the virginal conception and birth of Jesus is rooted in the belief that these events are supernatural rather than natural. According to biblical interpretation, particularly from the Book of Isaiah, the prophecy states that a virgin will “bring forth a son.” The Greek term τέξεται, which translates to “bring forth” or “cause to be born,” corresponds to the Hebrew term וֹי ל דת (u·ildth), meaning “one giving birth.” This connection emphasizes that both the conception and birth of Jesus were miraculous. In this understanding, the conception of Jesus is deemed virginal since it is believed that Mary’s womb was not opened by a human father. Furthermore, Mary’s act of giving birth is also seen as a virginal event because, according to this interpretation, Christ did not open his mother’s womb during birth. Therefore, Mary is considered a virgin both at the time of Jesus’ conception and at his birth.

This assertion is further supported by another prophecy from Isaiah (66:7), which states, “Before she travailed (tahil), she brought forth (ya-la-dah); before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.” This verse reinforces the notion of a miraculous birth, aligning with the theological perspective God intended to convey through the prophetic words. Thus, the biblical narrative presents a cohesive explanation of these significant events in the context of Christian belief.

What Isaiah says in 7:14 about the Virgin Birth reflects what God intends to reveal in 66:7: Mary’s virginal integrity is never violated on either occasion, neither when she conceives Jesus nor when she gives birth to her Divine Son. We read in the English version of the Septuagint – the Greek translation from Hebrew: ‘Before she that travailed brought forth, before the travail-pain came on, she escaped it and brought forth a male.’ (Isaiah 66:7). The original Hebrew expression for “she was delivered” is malat (maw-lat’), also meaning “she escaped it,” as we have in the Greek translation. The above passage sheds light on the whole meaning and implications of the Hebrew phrase חֵ֛בֶללָ֖הּ וְהִמְלִ֥יטָה זָכָֽר׃ (she was delivered) in Isaiah 66:7 found in the Masoretic Text. The Virgin Mary escaped the experience of having to go into labor before giving birth, as all mothers ordinarily must, by Divine deliverance. She didn’t deliver her child (active voice) but was delivered (passive voice) of her child at God’s appointed time and by His intervention.

A woman who has given birth experiences a release from the challenges associated with childbirth. This concept suggests that she achieves this release by successfully giving birth. In the context of the Hebrew phrase regarding Mary, it implies that she was spared from the pains and difficulties typically associated with labor before giving birth. The Alexandrian Jews who translated Hebrew texts into Greek recognized these nuances in meaning. Therefore, the interpretation is: “She was spared from distress and brought forth a child.” While the woman is the direct agent of childbirth, it is God’s intervention that determines the timing of her birth, allowing her to give birth without experiencing the usual pains of labor.

Mary’s miraculous birth of a male child is depicted as a result of divine intervention, illustrating a unique exemption from the typical labor and childbirth experience. According to this narrative, God intervenes to ensure that Mary does not endure the usual pains of giving birth, allowing her to deliver the child without the normal biological processes associated with labor. In Hebrew verb forms, the Hiphil stem conveys causative actions while retaining the active voice. When using this stem, the subject instigates the verb’s action without directly carrying it out. For example, in the Qal stem, we see a straightforward statement such as “David reigned over Israel,” in which David is the direct subject performing the action. In contrast, transforming this into the Hiphil stem yields a sentence such as “God caused David to reign over Israel,” in which God is the subject and initiator of the action. This distinction is crucial in understanding how causative actions are expressed in biblical texts.

Mary plays a crucial role in the miraculous event of giving birth, but it is important to note that she does not undergo the customary process of labor and pain at the time of her delivery. Instead, it is through divine intervention that God facilitates her giving birth before she experiences the typical signs of labor. This extraordinary event demonstrates that the Virgin Mary conceives without a man’s involvement and gives birth. At the same time, her womb remains intact, symbolically described as a gate that must stay shut.

This phenomenon is emphasized in prophecies, such as Ezekiel’s, which indicate that not even the Messiah, called the Prince of Peace, would open her womb. Isaiah and other biblical accounts highlight that the Virgin’s conception and birth are not entirely natural but rather a miraculous sign pointing to the divine nature of her son. This child is identified as the coming Messiah King, destined to inherit the throne of David and restore his royal lineage. Mary is often regarded as a significant symbol of this divine restoration, as depicted in Revelation 12, reinforcing her essential role in the narrative of salvation and the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

In the early 5th century, key doctrinal debates within the Christian community focused on the nature of the hypostatic union, which pertains to the relationship between Christ’s divine and human natures. These discussions culminated in the Council of Chalcedon, which provided a definitive dogmatic resolution that remains recognized as the Catholic Church’s expression of faith. Central to this conciliar definition was a pivotal letter from Pope Leo I addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This document, known as the Tome of Leo, was initially written in Latin in 449 A.D. and later translated into Greek for the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

The Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great is Christological, addressing significant aspects of Christ’s nature. However, the document also affirms the Church’s belief in Mary as “Ever-Virgin,” which, while secondary to the central dogma of the Incarnation, is nonetheless essential. The Tome states: “He was conceived from the Holy Spirit inside the womb of the Virgin Mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving birth to him as it was in conceiving him. So, without leaving his Father’s glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world, born in an unprecedented order by an unprecedented kind of birth.” This passage underlines both the mystery of the Incarnation and the significance of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I will declare the decree:
the LORD hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee.
Psalm 2, 7

EARLY SACRED TRADITION

St. Irenaeus of Lyons
Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 54
(A.D. 190)

“And concerning His birth, the same prophet [Isaiah] says in another place,
‘Before she who was in labor gave birth, and before the birth-pains came on,
she was delivered of a male child’ (Isaiah 66:7). Thus, he indicated His unexpected
and extraordinary birth from the Virgin.”

St. Ephrem of Syria
Commentary on the Diatesseron, 2.6
(ante A.D. 373)

“How would it have been possible for her to give birth filled with birth-pangs,
in the image of the primeval curse? If Mary was ‘blessed of women’ [Luke 1:42],
she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birth-pangs and curses.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa
On the Song of Songs 13
(ante A.D. 376)

“Among the myriads of men born of Adam, succeeding him as long as his nature
will continue through successive births, only Jesus came to light through a new way of being born… In fact, his birth alone occurred without labor pains, and he alone began to exist without sexual relations… Even the prophet Isaiah affirms that her giving birth was without pain, when he says, ‘Before the pangs of birth arrived, a male child came forth and was born’ (Isa 66:7).”

AVE MARIA

On the Solemnity of the Nativity of our Lord
25 December 2025