Virgin Marys term of pregnancy

[RWFC]

When I was younger, I remember during one CCD class that our instructor made the statement that the period between the Divine Conception and the birth of Jesus was dramatically shorter than the normal 9 months. As we were about 12 years of age, the instructor chose not to go into further detail but for some reason that was always something I remember. I have no idea what his statement was based on and have never seen that referenced before. Has anyone else heard something to this effect?

 

[Brendan]

The feast of the Annunciation is March 25.

The Nativity of our Lord is Dec 25,

Exactly 9 months

This has always been the case, so I’m not too sure how your instructor could have told you otherwise

 

[Della]

Perhaps you misunderstood him. Could it be he was talking about Mary’s birth pangs being far less than most women or nonexistent? I don’t doubt you remember what he said as you stated it, but it may be you misheard or misunderstood him?

 

[RWFC]

My question was actually a serious question and although I never understood his comment, for some reason I never forget it. Thanks for your response.

 

[Della]

My question was actually a serious question and although I never understood his comment, for some reason I never forget it. Thanks for your response.

I had no intention of not taking your question seriously, just the opposite. It is a very serious thing indeed to be taught something wrong as a child, which is why I asked if you were sure.

Folks come here all the time saying that they learned some odd thing or other as a child which kept them away from the Church for years. That is very serious, isn’t it? I hope that wasn’t the case for you, although since you didn’t say it was I assume it wasn’t.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I hope this isn’t a possibility but could the instructor have confused the Immaculate Conception with the Annunciation. It’s a stretch but he wouldn’t be the first one.

 

[AWall]

When I was younger, I remember during one CCD class that our instructor made the statement that the period between the Divine Conception and the birth of Jesus was dramatically shorter than the normal 9 months. As we were about 12 years of age, the instructor chose not to go into further detail but for some reason that was always something I remember. I have no idea what his statement was based on and have never seen that referenced before. Has anyone else heard something to this effect?

You know, I had a conversation with someone who claimed the same thing at a church I used to attend (not Catholic). Turns out they thought the Immaculate Conception was Jesus’ conception thus they claimed Mary was pregnant only a couple of weeks. (The gist of the conversation was the person was trying to scoff at Catholic belief).

Anyway, could be the teacher was confused about that, but I would hope not!

Andrea

 

[RWFC]

I had no intention of not taking your question seriously, just the opposite. It is a very serious thing indeed to be taught something wrong as a child, which is why I asked if you were sure.

Folks come here all the time saying that they learned some odd thing or other as a child which kept them away from the Church for years. That is very serious, isn’t it? I hope that wasn’t the case for you, although since you didn’t say it was I assume it wasn’t.

Della,
My comment was not directed to anyone in particular and no, I didn’t think you were implying that my question was trivial. As you say, things that you hear as a child stay with you. I actually am very strong of Faith and in recent years have been very interested in the ‘human side’ of Jesus life. I wish that there was more known about what He was like in his early life… Thanks again for you response!

Also, to Bruised Reed, I wondered if he confused the Immaculate Concepcion as well but as I recall, he was a rather astute man (or at least I thought so at the time) Thanks!

 

[palmas85]

When I was younger, I remember during one CCD class that our instructor made the statement that the period between the Divine Conception and the birth of Jesus was dramatically shorter than the normal 9 months. As we were about 12 years of age, the instructor chose not to go into further detail but for some reason that was always something I remember. I have no idea what his statement was based on and have never seen that referenced before. Has anyone else heard something to this effect?

I think I can explain this one since my birthday is October 11. That used to be the Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Many people misunderstood exactly what this feast was about and believed that it signified the date that Mary actually became impregnated. They thought that the Feast of the Annunciation represented merely the announcement to Mary not the actual impregnation. They also believed that December 25 was the actual day of Christs Birth so the time between impregnation Oct 11 and birth Dec 25 was about 2 1/2 months.

I used to have people tell me all the time how special I was because I was born on the same day that Christ was conceived and that I should become a priest because of it.

 

[elvisman]

The Scriptures speak of Mary staying with Elizabeth for 3 months. This was AFTER the Anunciation, so she was pregnant for at LEAST 3 months!

 

[JimG]

I have quite often come across people who mistake the Immaculate Conception of Mary with the conception of Jesus. They think that Jesus was conceived on Dec 8th and born on Dec 25th.

But as Brendan pointed out, the feast of the Annunciation (or Incarnation)–Jesus’ conception–is on March 25th, exactly 9 months before Christmas.

Dec 8th celebrates Mary’s conception, not Jesus’.

 

[jamannor]

But as Brendan pointed out, the feast of the Annunciation (or Incarnation)–Jesus’ conception–is on March 25th, exactly 9 months before Christmas.

Not that it really matters, but Jesus probably wasn’t born on December 25th. There are lots of reasons why this date was picked, and also why other dates are a better choice, but I will just leave a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Origin of Christmas- Catholic encyclopedia.

An interesting side note is that if the December date is correct, it’s based on 9 month pregnancy, Jesus conceptin was on March 25th. But why this day? Well, it has to do with Zacharias being a levite, and when he would have served in the temple.

 

[Paul_from_MA]

The Scriptures speak of Mary staying with Elizabeth for 3 months. This was AFTER the Anunciation, so she was pregnant for at LEAST 3 months!

Lk 1: 36 has Gabriel telling Mary that Elizabeth “is in the sixth month”
Lk 1: 56 says Mary remained with Elizabeth “for about three months and then returned to her home.”
Lk 1: 57 reports that Elizabeth “gave birth to a son”.

What can we make of this?

1. Mary raced to Elizabeth’s side immediately after getting the news and then left her immediately before she gave birth.
2. Elizabeth was actually pregnant for MORE than nine months.
3. It’s best not to take every Bible passage at its very word.

I follow the path #3. I can have a deep faith in God and an abiding regard for the scriptures while at the same time remembering that the inspired authors were simply attemping to relate stories of faith – they were under no obligation to provide forensic evidence of obstetric curiosities.

 

[elvisman]

Lk 1: 36 has Gabriel telling Mary that Elizabeth “is in the sixth month”
Lk 1: 56 says Mary remained with Elizabeth “for about three months and then returned to her home.”
Lk 1: 57 reports that Elizabeth “gave birth to a son”.

What can we make of this?

1. Mary raced to Elizabeth’s side immediately after getting the news and then left her immediately before she gave birth.
2. Elizabeth was actually pregnant for MORE than nine months.
3. It’s best not to take every Bible passage at its very word.

I follow the path #3. I can have a deep faith in God and an abiding regard for the scriptures while at the same time remembering that the inspired authors were simply attemping to relate stories of faith – they were under no obligation to provide forensic evidence of obstetric curiosities.

**Yes - that’s why I used a “Smiley Face”. I was making a joke. ****This nit-picking of Scripture passages on these forums always makes me smile. **
Rather silly, actually . . .