LCV ERROR: No one taught you what the Immaculate Conception refers to?

Type 'Immaculate Conception' into a Topic Guide. The only suggestion is 'Virgin Birth of Christ'. Not quite the same thing... At least not for those who are likely to search for that topic.

The real irony comes when one runs that 'Virgin Birth of Christ' Guide and looks in the Definitions section. After a number of 'Virgin Birth' entries, the last one immediately visible for me is "IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, THE" from the 1915 ISBE. Clicking on that link, I can then read:

"IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, THE

<i-mak’-u-lat kon-sep’-shun>:

DEFINITION:

The historic designation of the Roman Catholic dogma promulgated by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, in the Papal Bull entitled “Ineffabilis Deus.” The term is often incorrectly applied, even by those whose intelligence should make such an error impossible, to the VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST (which see)."

I guess even that rather... outspoken warning wasn't enough to prevent you from tagging the article to precisely 'Virgin Birth of Christ'... Stick out tongue

How long will it take before we finally get (correctly tagged!) Catholic (and Orthodox) topics? It's long overdue!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

Type 'Immaculate Conception' into a Topic Guide

And that was the one I looked at when thinking about your post in the other thread!

And I was surprised to see some of the entries there[:)]

Louis St. Hilaire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516036#Comment_516036

Yeah, we caught this earlier. It will be fixed in an forthcoming update to LCV.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516044#Comment_516044

Thanks, Lou.

Any ETA on that update? It's been "forthcoming" a very long time now.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516079#Comment_516079

Btw, I just found http://wiki.logos.com/LCV_Wishlist. Do you read that list? Is it meaningful to add things to it?

Louis St. Hilaire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516079#Comment_516079

Any ETA on that update? It's been "forthcoming" a very long time now.

LCV is updated periodically as we align new resources. I don't have an ETA yet, but we're working on aligning some Catholic resources, so improved coverage of Catholic theological terms will come as an effect of that. (And to be honest, I discovered this specific problem only relatively recently. I don't know whether anyone else had noticed and reported it.)

Btw, I just found http://wiki.logos.com/LCV_Wishlist. Do you read that list? Is it meaningful to add things to it?

LCV grows by expansion of the resources aligned with it. We add new concepts when a resource we're aligning covers a topic not supported by current concepts. It looks to me like a number of things on the list actually now have concepts, but this has probably just occurred through the normal process of addition of new resources to the database.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516102#Comment_516102

I never understood the terminology "virgin birth," and it seems strange to me that Logos suggests it. I understand that Mary conceived as a virgin, but the birth was in the natural way. Was it not? Wouldn't the correct terminology be virgin conception? I have wondered this for a while now. Is there some tradition that Jesus was not born naturally?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516153#Comment_516153

I never understood the terminology "virgin birth," and it seems strange to me that Logos suggests it. I understand that Mary conceived as a virgin, but the birth was in the natural way. Was it not? Wouldn't the correct terminology be virgin conception? I have wondered this for a while now. Is there some tradition that Jesus was not born naturally?

Yes there are - in fact probably most Christians across most of History have seen the Blessed Virgin Mother as having remained a Virgin her whole life...

As a Lutheran, we teach that "...Because of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, gave birth not to a mere, ordinary human being, but instead to a human being who is truly the Son of God the Most High, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty in his mother’s womb, in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore, she remained truly the Mother of God and at the same time a virgin." (Solid Declaration VIII, para 24 - my emphasis)

Kolb, R., Wengert, T. J., & Arand, C. P. (2000). The Book of Concord: the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (p. 620). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Admittedly, while it is quite literally on the books, I have never seen people really make a big deal about it. But I think it has to do with Gen 3.16. We cannot see the Birth of Jesus - who is such a blessing to the world - as really cursed in that way.

SDG

Ken McGuire

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516159#Comment_516159

Interesting. I guess I never considered the natural birth as violating her virginity, even though I certainly see where that would come into play. I did know that some denominations argue for the perpetual virginity of Mary. I just think of her virginity in terms of sexual contact before the birth of Jesus, as it seems that no canonical or deuterocanonical book makes mention of her perpetual virginity, or implies that Jesus was not born in the natural way.

I will have to go back and read the Protoevangelium of James. Even though I don't hold that view, I feel ignorant because I was not more aware.[:$] I will also check out the references you cited. Thanks!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516153#Comment_516153

I never understood the terminology "virgin birth," and it seems strange to me that Logos suggests it. I understand that Mary conceived as a virgin, but the birth was in the natural way. Was it not? Wouldn't the correct terminology be virgin conception? I have wondered this for a while now. Is there some tradition that Jesus was not born naturally?

The Catholic teaching is that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after childbirth. I believe the "during" part still allows for some various interpretations, but since St Bridget of Sweden had a vision in Bethlehem in the 14th century, which had a profound impact on Christian art, I believe the most common belief has been that Christ's birth was anything but natural. I'll look it up tomorrow, but I think she simply saw Him one second in the womb, the next laying outside, similar to the post-resurrection stories.

And that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life was the common Christian belief, shared by all Reformers I know of, right up to the Enlightenment and the birth of Liberal theology.

But even if you don't believe that, it would still have been a virgin birth if she didn't have sex during the pregnancy, which the Bible seems to be pretty clear about.

(The Immaculate Conception, however, refers to the conception of Mary, not the conception of Jesus.)

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516167#Comment_516167

But even if you don't believe that, it would still have been a virgin birth if she didn't have sex during the pregnancy, which the Bible seems to be pretty clear about.

But it would only be a virgin BIRTH if Jesus was born the way you described, where he suddenly appeared outside the womb. I agree that it is clear that Mary did not have sexual contact up until the birth of Jesus, but that just means that there was a virgin conception. The birth would be a normal birth (trying not to get too descriptive here [:$] [+o(]). I understand the view that she remained a virgin, but I was unaware of the tradition that Mary did not give birth to Jesus in the natural way. I do see now where "virgin birth" comes from.

(The Immaculate Conception, however, refers to the conception of Mary, not the conception of Jesus.)

Agreed!

Dave Hooton

The real irony comes when one runs that 'Virgin Birth of Christ' Guide and looks in the Definitions section. After a number of 'Virgin Birth' entries, the last one immediately visible for me is "IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, THE" from the 1915 ISBE. Clicking on that link, I can then read:

I hope the LCV update includes the recent Logos update to ISBE 1915 as the Ages version is the one in the LCV!

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516174#Comment_516174

But it would only be a virgin BIRTH if Jesus was born the way you described, where he suddenly appeared outside the womb. I agree that it is clear that Mary did not have sexual contact up until the birth of Jesus, but that just means that there was a virgin conception. The birth would be a normal birth (trying not to get too descriptive here ). I understand the view that she remained a virgin, but I was unaware of the tradition that Mary did not give birth to Jesus in the natural way. I do see now where "virgin birth" comes from.

I'm certainly don't see the understanding of a virgin birth this way. The Apostle's creed, one of the great ecumenical creeds, includes the phrase "born of the virgin Mary." Without any comment on the history of that phrase, nor the understanding of it by the Reformers (I haven't studied that question), I have understood this to simply refer to the manner of the conception of Jesus together with Matt. 1:25. Regardless of the state of the hymen (that is what this discussion is about, even if that term hasn't been used), the question of her virginity is about her lack of sexual contact. I frankly find it odd, that the state of a delicate membrane is what is meant by this word either in English or in Greek. But even if it did, when Jesus was being born, she would still have been a virgin until He passed through the birth canal.

Note that the word parthenos used of Mary (Matt. 1:23), can also refer to men (e.g., Rev 14:4). This suggests quite strongly that the concept of virginity was of sexual chastity, and not a description of an anatomical marker of sexual chastity. (See BDAG on παρθένος)

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516102#Comment_516102

we're working on aligning some Catholic resources, so improved coverage of Catholic theological terms will come as an effect of that

Great. Topic searches on Messiah and Jerusalem -- headwords that ought to turn up in most Christian or Jewish dictionaries, almost regardless of focus -- tells me that all you seem to have released so far is [Protestant] Bible dictionaries and one archaeological dictionary. Little wonder then that Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, theological and liturgical topics rarely show up.

The Liturgical Press dictionaries would be most welcome, as would the JPS ones. And why wasn't [at least the most suitable books in] the Catholic Reference Collection done before it shipped, only days before the L5 launch? Or the Jewish Encyclopedia, which shipped as late as June? Is LCV alignment still not part of the normal production process, even for encyclopedias, but only an 'extra' that might be added some time in the future if we are lucky?

LCV grows by expansion of the resources aligned with it. We add new concepts when a resource we're aligning covers a topic not supported by current concepts.

I see. To me that sounds very random, and not necessarily like the best approach from our point of view.

E g, I believe the LCV is what helps creating those "Search for "Lord's Supper", Communion, Eucharist instead?" lines in Search and other places? Now, if I search for Eucharist, I get such an option, but let's say I'm searching for "[The] Blessed Sacrament" instead. Or "[The Most Holy] Sacrament of the Altar". Perfectly valid synonyms, but not commonly used as headwords in dictionaries, and thus unlikely to ever be added by your current approach. Thus no Topic section and no "Search for..." line for such searches, and no addition of those terms to the current "Search for..." line.

And what exactly do I want if I start typing Eucharist in a Topic Guide? Do I want Eucharist = one of the [seven] sacraments, or [the institution of the] Eucharist = the Last Supper, or Eucharist = The Blessed Sacrament = the consecrated Hosts, or Eucharist = Communion = the distribution of those Hosts, or Eucharist = Holy Communion [service] = Mass = Divine Liturgy, or Eucharist = [the eschatological] Wedding Feast of the Lamb? Is Tabernacle a tent in the desert, a 'cupboard' in a church, or a temporary building for a feast? Is Qohelet a person or a book?

These concepts are related and overlapping, but not quite the same, and Logos doesn't handle them very well. E g Qohelet and Ecclesiastes are both existing topics, but entering one does not suggest the other, and the Qohelet one mixes the person and the book. And Eucharist only suggests Lord's Supper, not even the existing topic for Last Supper.

IOW, I think you need to do more preliminary work on the LCV itself, and especially on catching all possible synonyms, and mapping how they are related. I would also think that the more you have mapped out beforehand, the less you have to go back and redo later. I'm actually surprised to hear that you haven't done this already. I thought it was doing this that made it take so long.

It looks to me like a number of things on the list actually now have concepts, but this has probably just occurred through the normal process of addition of new resources to the database.

Great, but I wasn't interested so much in those particular words, as in whether the list was a meaningful way to communicate with the right people. (The concepts I am missing are more along the lines of Mass, Transsubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Theotokos, Dormition, Papal Infallibility, Matrimony, and a long list of synonyms and alternative meanings to existing words.)

Sorry for the length![:)] (And, yes, I do appreciate your work, I'm just impatient -- which is partly your own fault, since you keep writing blogs and things boasting about all the things Logos can do, even though the groundwork for those things isn't really in place yet.)

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516298#Comment_516298

I hope the LCV update includes the recent Logos update to ISBE 1915 as the Ages version is the one in the LCV!

Hadn't noticed that. Disappointing! (I only noticed yesterday that the Ages version had mysteriously been unlocked for me, and was intending to hide it (so thanks for the warning!))

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516079#Comment_516079

Thanks, Lou.

Any ETA on that update? It's been "forthcoming" a very long time now.

Perhaps a THETA? [;)] [:D]

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516314#Comment_516314

But it would only be a virgin BIRTH if Jesus was born the way you described, where he suddenly appeared outside the womb. I agree that it is clear that Mary did not have sexual contact up until the birth of Jesus, but that just means that there was a virgin conception. The birth would be a normal birth (trying not to get too descriptive here ). I understand the view that she remained a virgin, but I was unaware of the tradition that Mary did not give birth to Jesus in the natural way. I do see now where "virgin birth" comes from.

I'm certainly don't see the understanding of a virgin birth this way. The Apostle's creed, one of the great ecumenical creeds, includes the phrase "born of the virgin Mary." Without any comment on the history of that phrase, nor the understanding of it by the Reformers (I haven't studied that question), I have understood this to simply refer to the manner of the conception of Jesus together with Matt. 1:25. Regardless of the state of the hymen (that is what this discussion is about, even if that term hasn't been used), the question of her virginity is about her lack of sexual contact. I frankly find it odd, that the state of a delicate membrane is what is meant by this word either in English or in Greek. But even if it did, when Jesus was being born, she would still have been a virgin until He passed through the birth canal.

Note that the word parthenos used of Mary (Matt. 1:23), can also refer to men (e.g., Rev 14:4). This suggests quite strongly that the concept of virginity was of sexual chastity, and not a description of an anatomical marker of sexual chastity. (See BDAG on παρθένος)

I agree completely. That was my point. It is a virgin conception, and Jesus was BORN of a virgin, i.e. Mary had no sexual relations up until the birth of Jesus (some would argue after as well), but the actual birth was normal. The references by some above seem to suggest that some traditions hold that he was not born in the normal way, and that he suddenly appeared outside of the womb.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516341#Comment_516341

1. I agree with the original post about the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception referring to the way Mary was conceived. I'm glad Logos has caught this and will adjust it.

2. I totally agree with Joseph and Richard. I always thought Luke 2:6 referred to the natural course of pregnancy and delivery. I thought the Virgin Birth (as described Richard) was something that Protestants and Roman Catholics held in common. Now I find it is important to "define your terms" when having a discussion. When discussing the "Son of God" with a Mormon I knew we were working with different understandings of the same term. Now I find that in discussions with Roman Catholics I am aware that I will have to clarify what we each mean when phrases are used. I do NOT mean to be argumentative! just that I was enlighted today in the discussions that I have with my neighbors.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516174#Comment_516174

But it would only be a virgin BIRTH if Jesus was born the way you described

I intended to respond, but it seems that while I was busy answering Lou, Richard already posted essentially what I planned to say, so I'll keep it short: the idea of a 'physical' criteria for virginity makes absolutely no sense to me at all in a Christian context. She hadn't had sex, thus she was a virgin, thus it was a virgin birth.

Oh, yes, I promised to look for St Bridget's vision. Here's the first search result that happened to come up: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.se/2011/12/birth-of-jesus-revealed-to-st-bridget.html (tip: interesting link about Christ's birth date).

One intriguing thought that came to me yesterday just after posting, and which I haven't seen anywhere, was: unlike other children, Christ must have had an option whether to cause Mary pain during His birth, or not. Doesn't that make causing pain a sin?[^o)] Got to think about that some time.[:)]

We're getting sidetracked (and, yes, I'm helping[:$]).

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516341#Comment_516341

Mary had no sexual relations up until the birth of Jesus (some would argue after as well), but the actual birth was normal.

Not arguing but pointing something out that may have been unintentionally not considered. Isaiah 7:14 and Mt. 1:22–23 indicate that the virgin will not only conceive but also bring forth. (יָלַד and τίκτω)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516355#Comment_516355

Now I find that in discusstions with Roman Catholics I am aware that I will have to clarify what we each mean when phrases are used.

Yes! And the killers are the more subtle ones like "church" (militant, suffering, triumphant); or "saint" where the the usage is more common than some expect; or "canon" where I've filled 2 forum pages before getting someone to understand that our definition was somewhat different.[:D]

Back to the LCV, I've been discouraged by the slowness of adding Jewish, Catholic and Orthodox terms ... when topics.logos.com was first released I noted this as a serious problem and added terms to illustrate the problem. I've also been disappointed by lack of disambiguation progress.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516443#Comment_516443

Back to the LCV.

I guess the commonality of Logos COMMON Vocabulary needs granularity. Perhaps a lexicon of the different senses in the LCV. [:D]