T
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So can priests in the other non-LATIN rites as well as some Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism.
A
adrift
Guest
I think you are misunderstanding. It wasn’t the mother-in-law he was saying was dead but Peter’s wife.
reread what was posted
Peter’s wife is the one being spoken about…
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Roscoe. You stated:
Remember the Ark issue discussed earlier? If the Ark were archeologically found today, would it be OK to store old shoes in it or motor oil or something like this.
Recall it is not a “sin” to put shoes in an old box.
Or would that be profaning (making common) something that which is holy and DEDICATED for another purpose?
Meditate on this and see what you come up with.
Fair enough (good question). Aside from the fact that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is true, keep in mind, all Marian doctrines have Christologic implications. All the teachings about Mary, tell us something about Jesus and His work.
Remember the Ark issue discussed earlier? If the Ark were archeologically found today, would it be OK to store old shoes in it or motor oil or something like this.
Recall it is not a “sin” to put shoes in an old box.
Or would that be profaning (making common) something that which is holy and DEDICATED for another purpose?
Meditate on this and see what you come up with.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
PastGrandKnight.
Presumably concerning Isaiah 7:14 (Hebrew word “almah” transliterated into the verse below)
ISAIAH 7:14 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, an **almah **shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.
You stated:
There are actually at least three different Hebrew words that could have been used here.
ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold **a virgin **(almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
ISAIAH 7:14 (RSV) 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman (almah) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.
Why do you think “Betulah” always translates into “virgin” (or do you not think this)?
The Prophet Joel 1:8 tells us . . . .
**JOEL 1:8 ** 8 Lament like a virgin (“betulah”) girded with sackcloth for the **bridegroom ** of her youth.
Do MARRIED women who in their youth, who HAD a bridegroom still have their “virginity”?
Or could “betulah” mean virgin but can ALSO mean “young woman” in some cases too?
If I am supposed to accept the fact that “because the Bible translates it this way”, then I could do the same thing with Isaiah 7:14 and translations of “almah” to “virgin” to you. So that isn’t going to work.
You might try to argue that the woman in Joel 1:8 has completed kiddushin but not yet nisuin, and then her husband died. But if you make that argument I have to see an authoritative source (evidence). Citing new-testament-era rabbinic Jewish rabbis will not convince me any more than me citing Bishops apparently won’t satisfy you so you will have to go the Bible itself, or to Temple Jewish era rabbinic sources to try to persuade me. Otherwise it is just an ipse dixit argument you would be making.
Also if you are going to argue the Prophet Joel is using “betulah” to mean a “virgin” awaiting nisuin be prepared to explain why he didn’t use the term "betulah m’orashah” (“betrothed virgin”) too.
But it would be quite natural for the Prophet Joel to use betulah if this “betulah” had completed kiddushin AND nisuin (which suggests no strict virginity connotations with “betulah” here).
Consider:
**DEUTERONOMY 22:13-14a-19 ** 13 "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, . . . . 19 (and) they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a **virgin **(“betulah”) of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
Is a woman who has been “gone into” still a virgin PastGrandKnight?
The fact is, that Betulah does NOT always mean “Virgin”.
There is no Hebrew word that always connotes virginity.
And the Hebrew word naarah could have been used to have stronger leanings toward merely “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14. But the Prophet Isaiah didn’t use naarah. He used the word “almah” which just as betulah and naarah can have virginal connotations.
If you want I will begin a new thread on this (I might just begin one anyway as we now have 18 pages on this one and it is tough for someone to block out time to read this much).
If this is all mere preconceived notions of modern “Christians” why would the ancient Syriac Peshitta translate almah as “chaste girl”? The Peshitta was so early they don’t know if it was rabbinic Jewish sources or fulfilled Temple Jewish (Catholic) sources.
Almah (alma) can mean “young woman”, but it can ALSO mean “virgin” in Hebrew.
Almah was the perfect word for Isaiah to use for Messianic prophecies because of the layered meaning but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
Presumably concerning Isaiah 7:14 (Hebrew word “almah” transliterated into the verse below)
ISAIAH 7:14 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, an **almah **shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.
You stated:
There IS a Hebrew prophecy of a Virgin Birth. There’s actually more than one, but I won’t get into that here.
There are actually at least three different Hebrew words that could have been used here.
- Betulah
- Almah
- Naarah
ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold **a virgin **(almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
ISAIAH 7:14 (RSV) 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman (almah) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.
Why do you think “Betulah” always translates into “virgin” (or do you not think this)?
The Prophet Joel 1:8 tells us . . . .
**JOEL 1:8 ** 8 Lament like a virgin (“betulah”) girded with sackcloth for the **bridegroom ** of her youth.
Do MARRIED women who in their youth, who HAD a bridegroom still have their “virginity”?
Or could “betulah” mean virgin but can ALSO mean “young woman” in some cases too?
If I am supposed to accept the fact that “because the Bible translates it this way”, then I could do the same thing with Isaiah 7:14 and translations of “almah” to “virgin” to you. So that isn’t going to work.
You might try to argue that the woman in Joel 1:8 has completed kiddushin but not yet nisuin, and then her husband died. But if you make that argument I have to see an authoritative source (evidence). Citing new-testament-era rabbinic Jewish rabbis will not convince me any more than me citing Bishops apparently won’t satisfy you so you will have to go the Bible itself, or to Temple Jewish era rabbinic sources to try to persuade me. Otherwise it is just an ipse dixit argument you would be making.
Also if you are going to argue the Prophet Joel is using “betulah” to mean a “virgin” awaiting nisuin be prepared to explain why he didn’t use the term "betulah m’orashah” (“betrothed virgin”) too.
But it would be quite natural for the Prophet Joel to use betulah if this “betulah” had completed kiddushin AND nisuin (which suggests no strict virginity connotations with “betulah” here).
Consider:
**DEUTERONOMY 22:13-14a-19 ** 13 "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, . . . . 19 (and) they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a **virgin **(“betulah”) of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
Is a woman who has been “gone into” still a virgin PastGrandKnight?
The fact is, that Betulah does NOT always mean “Virgin”.
There is no Hebrew word that always connotes virginity.
And the Hebrew word naarah could have been used to have stronger leanings toward merely “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14. But the Prophet Isaiah didn’t use naarah. He used the word “almah” which just as betulah and naarah can have virginal connotations.
If you want I will begin a new thread on this (I might just begin one anyway as we now have 18 pages on this one and it is tough for someone to block out time to read this much).
If this is all mere preconceived notions of modern “Christians” why would the ancient Syriac Peshitta translate almah as “chaste girl”? The Peshitta was so early they don’t know if it was rabbinic Jewish sources or fulfilled Temple Jewish (Catholic) sources.
Almah (alma) can mean “young woman”, but it can ALSO mean “virgin” in Hebrew.
Almah was the perfect word for Isaiah to use for Messianic prophecies because of the layered meaning but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
P
PastGrandKnight
Guest
As long as Peter’s wife was alive (and they were still married) the woman was still Peter’s mother-in-law. That has always been the case under Jewish law. Thus, the reference to her as “Mother-in-law” tells me that Peter’s wife was still alive at that time.
I should know better than to expect non-Jews to fully understand Jewish law. lol
But the point still remains: Peter’s wife was not relevant to the question of Mary being a virgin or not. Did you notice that the wives of the other Apostles were also not mentioned in the Gospels? Why not? Because they did not believe that people would be debating this subject 2000 years later (among other more obvious and valid reasons).
Have a nice day.
P
PastGrandKnight
Guest
It is meaningless to say that bibles translate a Hebrew word in one way…especially when the person doing the translation is not even a Jew, and probably does not know the correct translation from Hebrew into English.
Anyway, I’m not going to get into a shouting match with you over this. The thread is already getting too long, and I have other things to do right now. Have a nice day, and Mazel Tov to you.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I’ve addressed it. We take the Eucharist into our mouths (and sometimes hands) and we use both of them for common things everyday.
I hardly think drawing a comparison to an another possible child and old shoes is a valid one. A Child is a bit more significant.
T
TimothyH
Guest
P
PastGrandKnight
Guest
It helps to have the background. My advantage is that I did attend the Lubavitz Yeshiva school in Boston. This was long before I became Roman Catholic, but I still remember much of what I was taught.You don’t have to be Jewish to be an expert in Hebrew.
-Tim-
The fact remains that not all virgins are young women, and not all young women are virgins. But the translation from Isaiah is clearly “young woman”. Anyone who does not believe that is free to ask any Orthodox Rabbi. I suggest Orthodox because they keep the strictest of translations as it came down from the original Hebrew. Then again, if having a correct translation does not mean anything to you, then feel free to ask a Reform Rabbi. They are so far off base as to be laughable, at times. And if you ask a Conservative Rabbi, his answer will be very close to that of the Orthodox most of the time.
Have a nice day.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Actually, it is demonstrable that you are correct.
Take as an example the Holy of Holies in the 2nd Temple period.
Not only was there no 10 commandments, jar of manna, or rod of Aaron, there was no Ark at all.
And yet, the Holy of Holies was still, well, Holy.
P
PastGrandKnight
Guest
“No Ten Commandments”? Are you suggesting that Moses did not bring two stone tablets down from the Mountain of God? Or are you suggesting that Moses carved the tablets himself? (Very foolish notion, as Moses was not a stone mason…that was Joshua’s occupation!)
As for the Rod, it was not Aaron’s. It belonged to Moses, who had been given that rod by Ramses when he (Moses) was exiled out of Egypt.
T
TimothyH
Guest
There was no Ark, therefor no tablets, manna, etc.
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19)
There was no Ark in the second temple period and that is why Revelation 11:19 would have been so shocking.
-Tim-
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Please stay on topic or this thread will be closed.
As per the Forum Rules***, if you want to discuss another topic, you should open a new thread.
Please stay on topic or this thread will be closed.
As per the Forum Rules***, if you want to discuss another topic, you should open a new thread.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Responding to the moderator’s notice, I’ll restate what I said in one of my previous posts.
If Mary is not a perpetual virgin then Jesus is not God, Christianity is a mistake, and I am going to the Jews.
-Tim-
If Mary is not a perpetual virgin then Jesus is not God, Christianity is a mistake, and I am going to the Jews.
-Tim-
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But it was known and revered long before then.
Priestly Celibacy and Its Roots in Christ … Interview with Fr McGovern
National Catholic REGISTER, May 19-25, 2002
This argument is invalid because it results from a confusion of several distinct but related elements in Church history which need to be clarified. In the first millennium of the Church, apart from single men who came forward for ordination, many candidates for the priesthood were already married.
Code:
Nevertheless, a precondition for these men to be ordained was a commitment to perpetual continence in their subsequent married life. Church legislation on this requirement for married higher clergy (bishops, priests, and deacons) goes back to the Council of Elvira in the year 305 or thereabouts.
On the other hand, a single man, once he was ordained a priest, could not marry subsequently if he wished to continue in the ministry – this was a law which applied to the Church in both East and West from time immemorial and was never subsequently abrogated.
Down through the history of the Church many such priests failed in their commitment to celibacy and took to living with concubines, an abuse which became widespread during the Middle Ages. Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) reaffirmed the ancient norms concerning the prohibition of marriage for clerics in major orders but met with stiff opposition from priests in irregular situations who campaigned vigorously for the right to marry.
At the Second Lateran Council (1139), it was decreed that a marriage attempted by a bishop, priest, or deacon was not only gravely illicit but also invalid. This led to the misunderstanding, still widespread today, that celibacy for higher clergy was introduced as late as Lateran II. In reality that Council declared invalid something that had always been prohibited.Mary’s perpetual virginity mirrors the virginity of Jesus, and priests who stand in persona Christi follow Christ by remaining celibate, also.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
It is the ancient consensus of the Church that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Christ. Both Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit leads the Church to preserve the true doctrine as taught by Christ and his Apostles. The Bible is just one expression of the Holy Tradition of the Church, not the whole Holy Tradition. According to Holy Tradition Mary was ever virgin. This was affirmed at the 5th Ecumenical Council, the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553.
Understood in the original Greek, the Biblical texts usually used by Protestants to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary actually affirm her perpetual virginity. In the Greek text from Matthew 1:25, " but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus" the verb in is a tense that does not imply that Joseph “knew her” after the birth of Christ because the tense used does not imply that the action to which it refers took place later. The brother and sisters referred to in the Gospels could also mean cousins or close relatives not necessarily actual brothers. Finally, if Mary had other children why would Our Lord entrust his mother to St. John on the Cross?
Archpriest John W. Morris
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.
As a married Orthodox Priest, I find that attitude offensive. I have sacrificed not only my own life, but that of my wife and children to serve Christ. Because our parishes are much smaller, I am quite sure that I am much closer to the individual members of my flock than the average Catholic Priest. Our parishes have to be smaller because it is against the practice of our church for a Priest to serve more than one Divine Liturgy a day. It is also against the practice of our Church for more than one Divine Liturgy to be served a day on the same Altar. Unlike the average Catholic Church we serve Vespers and Matins from what you call the daily office on the parish level. Thus, I serve Vespers every Saturday evening and Matins before the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning.
The Orthodox Church ordains married men, but does not allow priests or deacons to marry. Once a man is ordained he cannot marry. If my wife were to die, I could not remarry and remain a priest.
Orthodoxy sees celibacy as a monastic calling. It is extremely difficult for an unmarried man to be ordained to serve as a parish priest because it is the feeling of the Church that a married man can best minister to married people and understand what their life is like.
Although I am married, when I am fully vested and preside over the Eucharist, I stand in the place of Christ, who is the actual minister of the Sacrament. That is why a priest must be male but not why a married man cannot be ordained. Rome has married priests in the Eastern Rites as well as in special cases when Protestant clergy convert to Rome. If I converted to Catholicism, I would be accepted as a priest and not be re ordained. Whereas all Protestant and Anglican clergy who convert to Catholicism, or Orthodoxy for that matter, are always received as laymen and their ordination not recognized by either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church.
Archpriest John W. Morris
As a married Orthodox Priest, I find that attitude offensive. I have sacrificed not only my own life, but that of my wife and children to serve Christ. Because our parishes are much smaller, I am quite sure that I am much closer to the individual members of my flock than the average Catholic Priest. Our parishes have to be smaller because it is against the practice of our church for a Priest to serve more than one Divine Liturgy a day. It is also against the practice of our Church for more than one Divine Liturgy to be served a day on the same Altar. Unlike the average Catholic Church we serve Vespers and Matins from what you call the daily office on the parish level. Thus, I serve Vespers every Saturday evening and Matins before the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning.
The Orthodox Church ordains married men, but does not allow priests or deacons to marry. Once a man is ordained he cannot marry. If my wife were to die, I could not remarry and remain a priest.
Orthodoxy sees celibacy as a monastic calling. It is extremely difficult for an unmarried man to be ordained to serve as a parish priest because it is the feeling of the Church that a married man can best minister to married people and understand what their life is like.
Although I am married, when I am fully vested and preside over the Eucharist, I stand in the place of Christ, who is the actual minister of the Sacrament. That is why a priest must be male but not why a married man cannot be ordained. Rome has married priests in the Eastern Rites as well as in special cases when Protestant clergy convert to Rome. If I converted to Catholicism, I would be accepted as a priest and not be re ordained. Whereas all Protestant and Anglican clergy who convert to Catholicism, or Orthodoxy for that matter, are always received as laymen and their ordination not recognized by either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church.
Archpriest John W. Morris
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Since I posted it, I will respond.
Why are you offended? No one said that you are not doing your best or making sacrifices. All that I said is that the Catholic Church asks that those who represent Christ follow him as closely as possible.
And how’s that working out for you? Do you know who really supports celibacy for clergy? According to the studies I’ve seen, it’s the wives of the priests, that’s who. They are the ones who end up going to soccer practice and doing homework with the kids while dad is out doing work for the Church.
Your parishes are also smaller because of several other reasons, as well, but let’s not get into that argument here.
And your bishops who hold the fullness of the ordination? Never married, right? So, there are some similarities.
And only women priests understand what it’s like to be a woman, and only gay priests understand, etc, etc. I get it. Interesting concept, Father.
Although some are subsequently ordained as priests while remaining married at the discretion of their Bishop. It’s rare…but it happens.
- Status