Jesus' birth was not a phantasm

[Philip G.]

The definition of phantasm is: a figment of the imagination; an illusion or apparition.  An illusory likeness of something.

Pope John ii 534ad: ... Therefore, because the Son of God was properly and truly made flesh from her and born of her, we confess that she was properly and truly the Mother of God made incarnate and born from her, and properly indeed, lest it be believed that the Lord Jesus received the name of God through honor or grace, as the foolish Nestorius thinks; but truly for this reason, lest it be believed that He took flesh in a phantasm or some other manner, not true flesh from the virgin, just as the impious Eutyches has asserted." 

St. agapetus i 535 and St. Silverius 536 are named under this confession, I presume because they concur.

How does the description that Jesus was born "like light passing through a glass", where the "light doesn't harm the glass" not characterize a phantasm or some other manner condemned above by these holy popes of the early church? 

The definition of miracle is :a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

In the whole statement of Pope John ii, miraculous is not mentioned once regarding the birth of our Lord.  Our Lady is the spouse of the Holy Ghost.  That is a miracle.  But, when Jesus was born, "Mary kept all of the things in her heart".  But, she did not keep in her heart what immediately had just occurred when she visited her cousin Elizabeth.  No, Mary said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord".  Mary gave us the magnificat, in response to that great miracle.  But, when Jesus was born, "Mary kept these things in her heart".  Why?  Is it because it was not to be attributed to a divine agency? 

[Melkor]

Our Lady gave birth to Jesus yet remained a virgin through conception and delivery of Her Son. This is miraculous.

[Philip G.]

Our Lady gave birth to Jesus yet remained a virgin through conception and delivery of Her Son. This is miraculous.

Nature existed in the garden of paradise.  What we now have is fallen nature.  What is natural to Mary, may sound like a miracle to us.  But, it is still natural.  It is an unblemished immaculate natural.

[Philip G.]

I am not necessarily for considering the carnal birth of Our Lord not a miracle.  However, I am against describing that miracle in terms of something that is not a miracle, such as light traveling through glass.  That is not a miracle.  Glass is a man made creature, and is not to be conflated with such a sacred occasion.  To do so in my opinion would cross over into a territory that this papal teaching rejects.  Because, when I first hear that example, my brain registers it as Our Lord like a ghost just traveling from the womb of the virgin, out into this world.  Because, that is what light does when it travels through a window.  It just goes right through like the glass is not even there.  This is not what I believe happened with the virgin birth.  I believe it was carnal, and this papal teaching suggests the very same.  However, the glass example proponents might just argue it is only for the sake of saying that the light doesn't hurt the glass.  But, it is still not a good example, and suggests some phantasm/optical illusion that this papal teaching condemns.  Not a good example. 

[Melkor]

The Nativity was not carnal. Stop right there, you are treading in dangerous territory.

[Philip G.]

The Nativity was not carnal. Stop right there, you are treading in dangerous territory.

Perhaps it is for those who have a sick mind.  When I use the word carnal, whose valid definition is also simply something bodily/corporeal, it is to distinguish from a "spiritual" emphasis of the nativity, which by all accounts appears to be condemned by the Pope(s) I cite.  If anyone is treading on dangerous territory, it appears to be you.  It is not as if giving birth could ever be confused with something pleasurable or sexual.  I can't think of anyone who would be triggered by the use of that word within that context.  It is obvious what I meant, and the word I chose is not in conflict with it.  Jesus is God incarnate.  "Incarnatus" is a common usage in latin, and that is likely why I default to the word carnal in english.

[Philip G.]

It is the resurrected body of Jesus, not the newborn body of Jesus, that can walk through walls and the like, "as light travels through glass".  Perhaps, just as Jesus said to Mary magdalen, do not touch me, for I have not yet arisen, for a mysteriously like reason Our Lord is wrapped in swaddling clothes until he come of age.  At which point, ironically, woman can then touch but the hem of his garment, and be healed.  Children are sensitive(ticklish), and what we do in the body matters.  The resurrection of the body at the end of the world is a testament to this.  I never liked the naked baby Jesus often portrayed in modern art. 

[Philip G.]

In case anyone is wondering, this papal teaching is denzinger 202.

[Justin Martyr]

The condemned proposition by Pope John II is that Christ's incarnation was a phantasm rather than an ontological reality and that Mary isn't truly the Mother of God. I don't see how it relates the nativity here in any direct way.

[Philip G.]

The condemned proposition by Pope John II is that Christ's incarnation was a phantasm rather than an ontological reality and that Mary isn't truly the Mother of God. I don't see how it relates the nativity here in any direct way.

It doesn't have to "directly" relate to the nativity for it to be relevant and timely.  It relates in that some catholics erroneously believe that infant Jesus, like a spirit/illusion relocated from inside the womb of the virgin, to outside the womb of the virgin, "as light travels through glass".  Such a poor analogy is not by mistake.  If you want to regard it as a mystery, I am okay with that.  But, lets leave some room for mystery, instead of spoiling the concept with a faulty one.

[Daniel]

I don't understand the science behind it, but I believe that scientists claim that if a virgin woman were ever to give birth then the birth itself would somehow necessarily cause her to physically lose her virginity. Hence in order to affirm that our Lady was always a virgin, even during Christ's birth, theologians assert that Christ was born as light passing through glass.

This to me sounds reasonable. Christ passed through locked doors on Easter Sunday, didn't He? And He was neither a phantom nor a phantasm. Maybe He was born in the same way.

My only question is whether this is a revealed doctrine, or merely speculation. I'm perfectly fine saying "it's a mystery" and leaving it at that, but I believe there have been mystics who saw the birth in visions, as if Christ were light passing through glass. I'd think that if these visions were true private revelations, that this would correspond with what actually happened. Whether or not there is any unwritten tradition traceable back to the Apostles, I have no idea.

[Michael Wilson]

Our Lord's resurrection was also real and he passed through the closed doors of the Cenable as "light through a glass"; Our Lord in his humanity by His Hypostatic union with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity had the right to all the privileges of a glorified body, since He enjoyed the Beatific Vision from the first moment of His conception; He suspended these effects while on Earth in order to be able to suffer and die for our salvation; but He could "un-suspend" the effects whenever He wanted to, as His Transfiguration demonstrated; so in His passing from the womb of the B.V.M. Its also a dogma of faith that the B.V.M. Remained ever Virgin including after the birth of her divine Son. 

[Non Nobis]

Good article on this subject by Fr. William Most (1914-1999) https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/marys-physical-virginity-in-the-birth-of-jesus-9798

Note he starts by giving the view of dissenters, but then says

This really was an attempt to redefine virgin birth on the basis of speculation, rather than by following the Magisterium.

[Magisterium: 1) Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503: "If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."

COMMENT: It is important to note the word integrity, which means the state of being untouched, and so is a physical word. It rules out lesions, blood and similar things. The Greek text, which is of equal authority, has "aphthoros," without corruption.]

[Philip G.]

This really was an attempt to redefine virgin birth on the basis of speculation, rather than by following the Magisterium.

[Magisterium: 1) Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503: "If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."

COMMENT: It is important to note the word integrity, which means the state of being untouched, and so is a physical word. It rules out lesions, blood and similar things. The Greek text, which is of equal authority, has "aphthoros," without corruption.]

The lateran council is condemning the belief that after Mary gave birth to Jesus she bore/gave birth to other children.  "After his birth preserved her virginity inviolate has nothing to do with lesions, blood, and similar things".  You do not hear me putting for imagery for how she did it.  I am okay with labeling it a mystery.  But, it was certainly not like light passing through glass.  It was bodily.  It was corporeal.  It was proximate a healthy woman giving a highly successful birth.  Except, it was blissfully above and beyond that.  I mean, baby Jesus was circumcised shortly thereafter.  His birth was perceived by the naked eye.  If the eye is sound, the whole body is sound.  Thomas doubted the resurrected Christ.  Did Thomas doubt the miracles Jesus performed during his ministry?  I doubt it.

[Michael Wilson]

PhilG.

But, it was certainly not like light passing through glass.  It was bodily.  It was corporeal.  It was proximate a healthy woman giving a highly successful birth.  Except, it was blissfully above and beyond that.  I mean, baby Jesus was circumcised shortly thereafter.  His birth was perceived by the naked eye.  If the eye is sound, the whole body is sound.  Thomas doubted the resurrected Christ.  Did Thomas doubt the miracles Jesus performed during his ministry?  I doubt it.

A normal birth would have caused the loss of corporal Virginity; the birth of Our Lord was miraculous; He passed through the womb of the Blessed Virgin like He passed through the closed door of the Cenacle.  The Circumcision was not miraculous and Our Lord suffered and shed His blood for us for the first time. This is not an apt comparison. However, just as Our Lord entered the Cenacle from outside of it and was suddenly present to the Apostles, so would His birth have been.