"Some of the Fathers tell us that, if the state of innocence had continued, the conception of children, which is now accompanied, more or less, by the indulgence and excitement of concupiscence, would have been entirely free therefrom."
Although there would not have been any disordered concupiscence, wouldn't there have been physical pleasure, even more than after the Fall, but completely subject to reason and divine grace? Just as there would be pleasure in eating and drinking?
I've published 2 volumes of St Bridget's Revelations & wrote a book on Church Reform in the Revelations, but don't remember seeing this, which doesn't seem like what Our Lady would wear, or any modest woman would wear for that matter:
"Our Lady is most beautiful, clothed in a white mantle, with a thin tunic underneath it, through which her flesh could be seen."
First, this is an Orthodox Anathema: Mary is ever virgin before, during and after the birth of her one and only son, and Mary was ever pure. Anyone who teaches otherwise is anathema to the Orthodox Church.
I would like to understand Luke ii 21-24 that explains why Jesus was brought to the temple as a small child. In light of Leviticus xii 1-4 and 6-8 that is the "law of Moses" cited in Luke ii 22.
Verse 5 of Levitcus xii discusses when a woman bears a daughter, and so somewhat irrelevant.
But you are not the right person to broach this subject with, as you are not Orthodox. And Catholics do not, generally, believe this.
I thought I was addressing the article directly, not the comment about the clothes. Which is very interesting, in my opinion, but...
The article aligns with Orthodox dogma, not Catholic dogma. Catholics are not dogmatically required to believe Theotokos did not bleed or suffer pain in childbirth. There was no sacrifice of suffering on her part to bring forth her child, the christ.
"Some of the Fathers tell us that, if the state of innocence had continued, the conception of children, which is now accompanied, more or less, by the indulgence and excitement of concupiscence, would have been entirely free therefrom."
Although there would not have been any disordered concupiscence, wouldn't there have been physical pleasure, even more than after the Fall, but completely subject to reason and divine grace? Just as there would be pleasure in eating and drinking?
I've published 2 volumes of St Bridget's Revelations & wrote a book on Church Reform in the Revelations, but don't remember seeing this, which doesn't seem like what Our Lady would wear, or any modest woman would wear for that matter:
"Our Lady is most beautiful, clothed in a white mantle, with a thin tunic underneath it, through which her flesh could be seen."
Yes I found this weird too. However you missed out that cones immediately after:
"This is clearly for the purpose of the description, for in no other way could the Saint describe all that she has to describe."
I also wonder whether in this context mantle means something different to what we might think, Ie something considerably more fulsome and covering.
First, this is an Orthodox Anathema: Mary is ever virgin before, during and after the birth of her one and only son, and Mary was ever pure. Anyone who teaches otherwise is anathema to the Orthodox Church.
I would like to understand Luke ii 21-24 that explains why Jesus was brought to the temple as a small child. In light of Leviticus xii 1-4 and 6-8 that is the "law of Moses" cited in Luke ii 22.
Verse 5 of Levitcus xii discusses when a woman bears a daughter, and so somewhat irrelevant.
But you are not the right person to broach this subject with, as you are not Orthodox. And Catholics do not, generally, believe this.
Do not believe what?
I'm not sure what the point of this comment was in the end!
I thought I was addressing the article directly, not the comment about the clothes. Which is very interesting, in my opinion, but...
The article aligns with Orthodox dogma, not Catholic dogma. Catholics are not dogmatically required to believe Theotokos did not bleed or suffer pain in childbirth. There was no sacrifice of suffering on her part to bring forth her child, the christ.
This is what Catholics believe
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Article III:
""But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our
contemplation nothing but what is divine.
Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without
any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was
closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to
depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least
the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His
mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms,
therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth
of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual
virginity.
...
To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for
preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we
have already said, any sense of pain."