nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Mary's Changing Status?

FISMA

I haven't been keeping up too much with all of the people fleeing the various Christian sects due to same sex marriage, female priests and what have you.

Another post deals more with this topic so I will not get into that.

However, I came across an article, cited below, that says US bishops are changing an instance of Mary being referred to as a Virgin to that of a young woman.

I did not think much of it, and I am not sure if this is a US Catholic change or where the Vatican stands on the position.

But now I have to wonder is this a softening of position in order to make Catholicism more palatable to other sects?

If so, what next? It feels to me that unlike the other changes of "people," "holocaust," and "booty," this one may have more than meets the eye.

Ideas?

http://mynorthwest.com/category/local_news_articles/20110303/US-bishops-changing-Mary%27s-%27virgin%27-status-in-Bible/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Child Item

Comments

Donatello

The New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) is what this story concerns. The US bishops commissioned a new version of the New American Bible.

Most controversially, almah-- the Hebrew word rendered as “virgin” in the 1970 translation of Isaiah 7:14 (“the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel”), will be rendered as “young woman.” The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition renders almah as “young woman” in the text but explains in a footnote that the word also means “virgin.” In the New Testament, St. Matthew rendered the text of Isaiah as “behold, a virgin shall conceive” (Mt. 1:23).

The previous NAB features the word virgin. Although the original word can mean young woman or virgin, traditionally, Catholic have translated it as virgin.

American Catholics, it appears, are not impressed.

It's just a Bible translation. I won't be buying it. I have the NAB and I'm happy with it. But I'm even happier with the RSV-2CE.

The Catholic doctrine on the Blessed Virgin Mary remains unchanged, so you can sleep easy tonight! On a side-note, all mainstream non-Catholic Christian groups believe in the Virgin Birth, so your theory about the RCC pandering to non-Catholics is entirely without foundation. The Catholic Church cannot, and will not, sacrifice any of the truths of the faith for 'unity' based on falsehood. That would be a betrayal of Her divine mission.

himnextdoor

I think that the Bible was written to appeal to a superstitious audience that believed in magic.

The audience has changed, it's time the Bible did too. It's a matter of credibility.

Donatello

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think that the Bible was written to appeal to a superstitious audience that believed in magic.

The audience has changed, it's time the Bible did too. It's a matter of credibility.

Yes of course. The Church would admit that it had gotten everything wrong before, but now it has got it right and you should therefore believe in the faith proposed by the Church. The revised edition of the faith, of course. The Church's credibility would therefore increase in the beady eyes of the world. :rolleyes:

himnextdoor

Donatello wrote: »

Yes of course. The Church would admit that it had gotten everything wrong before, but now it has got it right and you should therefore believe in the faith proposed by the Church. The revised edition of the faith, of course. The Church's credibility would therefore increase in the beady eyes of the world. :rolleyes:

The core message doesn't have to change, peace, goodwill and all that, but the vehicle of transmission of that message should be relevant to a modern society.

Let common sense prevail. Why not?

Ogre Mage

I think of the bible as a didactic text. I know that my former church (I won't name it so you can understand impartially) is as filthy and corrupt as any evil in this world. For the most part, the bible strives to promote good morality, but there are some problems with it for sure. I believe in good. Good is what we all need to be, in our hearts. If the bible helps you move towards this, and it can, all the better. The concept of god is strange to me, and whether or not there is a personal accountability of what you have done after you die, i think that existence itself will suffer if we fail to meet the challenges facing us. Challeneges of the universe in turmoil, and we need high technology and high morals to survive and try to create goodness. Read your bible and see the bigger picture, it is the message of the story, not the details, and what good you put in your hearts. The world is infested with low morality and hate, so if you study and practice good, try to accept more those other people who do it, because blind hate between different religions over the facts of a didactic story is not good. god is good, and good is god. And when good men and women are busy disagreeing over the details of stories that helped them find goodness, evil men and women have more opportunity to decieve and sin.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor and Ogre Mage, please remain on topic.

FISMA, there is some debate as to the best translation. Why do you suppose one is better than the other?

Keylem

The matter of Mary's Perpetual Virginity is an infallible teaching of the Magisterium. Allen said, "...the original Greek word doesn't mean what we in contemporary English mean by a 'virgin.' It simply means a young woman,"

No, it does mean what we mean in contemporary English as "virgin". Although it can be translated as "young woman", it means a young woman who is a "virgin".

BrianCalgary

Unlike today: a young woman back then was a virgin.
So, did the word mean young woman? yes.
Was she a virgin? yes.

Penn

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Unlike today: a young woman back then was a virgin.
So, did the word mean young woman? yes.
Was she a virgin? yes.

Every young woman is a virgin until they've had sex, regardless of whether they lived 2,000 years ago or today.

So the fact that she was a young woman does not mean she was a virgin just because it was 2,000 years ago.

Donatello

At the risk of stating the obvious, the prophecy said a virgin would conceive a child. That would be a sign. Now what kind of a sign is it when a young woman gives birth to a child? Not much of a sign - it happens every day. What is unusual, and what is the content of the prophecy is what is remarkable: a virgin will conceive a son. That is the miracle and the sign. Otherwise, the prophecy is fairly meaningless.

PDN

The Hebrew word was actually quite similar to our English word 'maiden' which, depending on context, can refer to a young girl or can carry a more specific reference to virginity.

I can see why the US Catholics Bishops opted for the translation of 'young woman', but I think that on grounds of context they are mistaken. But it makes little difference since Christian belief in the virgin birth is based on Matthew Chapter 1 and Luke Chapter 1, not on Isaiah 7:14.

I might add that the OP is rather bone-headed. Any downgrading of the virgin birth would hardly attract anyone from other 'sects' :rolleyes: since other Christian denominations also believe in the virgin birth.

FISMA

Donatello wrote: »

On a side-note, all mainstream non-Catholic Christian groups believe in the Virgin Birth, so your theory about the RCC pandering to non-Catholics is entirely without foundation. The Catholic Church cannot, and will not, sacrifice any of the truths of the faith for 'unity' based on falsehood. That would be a betrayal of Her divine mission.

There's no theory put forth here, but a question.

I am not sure that "all mainstream non-Catholic Christian groups believe in the Virgin Birth," but will not question your statement. However, the topic of remaining a virgin after the birth is contested outside of Catholic circles.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

FISMA, there is some debate as to the best translation. Why do you suppose one is better than the other?

Not being able to obtain or translate the original text myself, I am unsure which is better, however, if it is not broken, then why fix it. Unless, it was just a translation problem.

Perhaps, someone better understanding of the original text and language could explain.

If they can remove this instance of virgin, due to a "translation," what's preventing them from removing the rest? Then Mary would be just a young woman, who did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

I wonder what makes the other instances of the word virgin acceptable? Obvious answer: different wording. It would be nice to have a scholar confirm this.

Again, changing the other words I understand, however, this word, at this time, does not sit right with me.

Fanny Cradock

I think you are confusing a virgin birth with the perpetual virginity of Mary. The latter being a largely Roman Catholic doctrine that seems to stem from sixth century sources. If one accepts that virgin birth is a possibility in humans (it certainly is in other species) and that this was divine in nature, then there is no reason to assume that Mary remained a virgin. Indeed, unless one denies that Jesus had any siblings (and that seems difficult given the gospel accounts) then I would wonder how this was the case. Perhaps one could propose multiple virgin births?

alex73

The greek word used παρθενών means "maiden, girl", but also "virgin, unmarried woman". It would refer to a young girl before she is married.

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you are confusing a virgin birth with the perpetual virginity of Mary. The latter being a largely Roman Catholic doctrine that seems to stem from sixth century sources. If one accepts that virgin birth is a possibility in humans (it certainly is in other species) and that this was divine in nature, then there is no reason to assume that Mary remained a virgin. Indeed, unless one denies that Jesus had any siblings (and that seems difficult given the gospel accounts) then I would wonder how this was the case. Perhaps one could propose multiple virgin births?

I don't think so.

Check this out:

"I’ve never understood why Catholics claim that Mary was a virgin her entire life. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. Matthew 13:55 settles the matter for me: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?’"

In answering any biblical objection to the faith, step number one is putting the other at ease by agreeing that if a teaching contradicts Scripture, the teaching must be wrong.

Next, examine the biblical evidence. In the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However... [Read more here.]

Keylem

Also, Jesus from the Cross gave his Mother to the care of John.

John 19:27 Douay-Rheims Bible
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. Which indicates that Jesus didn't have any siblings.

PDN

So now we're not only arguing about whether a 'virgin' is really a virgin, but also whether 'brothers' are really brothers.

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

So now we're not only arguing about whether a 'virgin' is really a virgin, but also whether 'brothers' are really brothers.

Did you read the apologetics articles that were linked to?

They explained all this in some detail.

Keylem

PDN wrote: »

So now we're not only arguing about whether a 'virgin' is really a virgin, but also whether 'brothers' are really brothers.

Even Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed that the Virgin Mary was a Virgin throughout her life.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

alex73

Both the West RC Church and East Orthodox Church believe Mary was a Virgin all her life and gave birth to Jesus from Immaculate conception. There has been endless debate if Jesus had brothers, or rather how to interpret the Greek meaning of the original.

Donatello

alex73 wrote: »

Both the West RC Church and East Orthodox Church believe Mary was a Virgin all her life and gave birth to Jesus from Immaculate conception. There has been endless debate if Jesus had brothers, or rather how to interpret the Greek meaning of the original.

The Immaculate Conception pertains to the Blessed Virgin Mary's own conception. Although the BVM was conceived in the normal way by her parents, she was, by a unique grace of God, preserved free from every stain of original sin. If anybody should wish to know more, then please see here.

I don't really see the issue with trying to insist that the BVM did not remain a virgin for her whole life, nor the desire to see that Jesus had brothers. I wonder about the motivation behind it.

The whole point of the Catholic teaching is this: the BVM was chosen by God to bear the Son of God, and then to be the mother of the adopted sons (and daughters) born in the Church, Christ's body, through baptism. All Christians then, are children of Mary and children of the Church. It is a beautiful theology and I cannot even begin to do it justice.

God had a plan for salvation, and it involved the Blessed Virgin Mary, who bore the Son of God, St. Joseph, who protected and guided Him, the Church, the saints, the Sacraments. Catholicism is a synthetic whole and it is a beautiful plan.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

So now we're not only arguing about whether a 'virgin' is really a virgin, but also whether 'brothers' are really brothers.

What would become of a woman who was a widow with no family in the time of Jesus?

If Joseph was no longer around and Jesus was Mary's only son, then when Jesus said the behold your mother/behold your son thing, He might have simply been giving the instruction that His mother is to be looked after.

What I wonder though is, when Joseph married Mary, was he anticipating a 'normal' marriage or had he sacrificed his will in order to be Mary's guardian; if Mary stayed a virgin then would he have stayed one too?

I can easily imagine how a woman could commit herself to God and never have the desire to 'know' a man so I don't have a problem with Mary being a perpetual virgin although I have issues regarding Jesus' conception. I think the Bible indicates that she was but does not indicate that her perpetual virginity was required. It was her choice; I think that she genuinely made a solemn promise to God and remained faithful to her promise for the whole of her life. Just like nuns do today, I think.

But Joseph, poor old Joseph... It seems to me that Joseph does not get the credit he deserves for his contribution to Christianity.

Quo Vadis

FISMA wrote: »

I haven't been keeping up too much with all of the people fleeing the various Christian sects due to same sex marriage, female priests and what have you.

Another post deals more with this topic so I will not get into that.

However, I came across an article, cited below, that says US bishops are changing an instance of Mary being referred to as a Virgin to that of a young woman.

I did not think much of it, and I am not sure if this is a US Catholic change or where the Vatican stands on the position.

But now I have to wonder is this a softening of position in order to make Catholicism more palatable to other sects?

If so, what next? It feels to me that unlike the other changes of "people," "holocaust," and "booty," this one may have more than meets the eye.

Ideas?

http://mynorthwest.com/category/local_news_articles/20110303/US-bishops-changing-Mary%27s-%27virgin%27-status-in-Bible/

Don't worry about it. Nothing has changed. Stay away from liberal wishy washy Catholicism and some liberal Bishops and Priests interpretation of same, which is very often at complete odds with the Vatican. Stick with the traditional teachings of the Church, study and understand them. You can't go wrong. Despite the rubbish you might hear, there is not a single argument against the Catholic Church's traditional teachings that has not been successfully refuted by Catholic theologians in the past. Just search for the truth and use the tinternet carefully. God Bless.

Keylem

himnextdoor wrote: »

What would become of a woman who was a widow with no family in the time of Jesus?

If Joseph was no longer around and Jesus was Mary's only son, then when Jesus said the behold your mother/behold your son thing, He might have simply been giving the instruction that His mother is to be looked after.

What I wonder though is, when Joseph married Mary, was he anticipating a 'normal' marriage or had he sacrificed his will in order to be Mary's guardian; if Mary stayed a virgin then would he have stayed one too?

I can easily imagine how a woman could commit herself to God and never have the desire to 'know' a man so I don't have a problem with Mary being a perpetual virgin although I have issues regarding Jesus' conception. I think the Bible indicates that she was but does not indicate that her perpetual virginity was required. It was her choice; I think that she genuinely made a solemn promise to God and remained faithful to her promise for the whole of her life. Just like nuns do today, I think.

But Joseph, poor old Joseph... It seems to me that Joseph does not get the credit he deserves for his contribution to Christianity.

St. Joseph always preserved his virgin chastity; and it is of faith that nothing contrary thereto ever took place with regard to his chaste spouse, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

He was given to Mary and her Divine Son, by Heaven as Protector and Guardian.

http://www.ewtn.com/saintsHoly/saints/J/stjoseph.asp

Child Item