A Question About The Immaculate Conception

Eruliel · Sep 11, 2006

All my life I've understood the theology behind the Immaculate Conception has existed because a perfect God cannot reside within imperfection, or be born of imperfection.

If God cannot be born of imperfection how could Jesus' ancestor Judah be sinful, and yet sire the entirety of Jesus' family tree?If God cannot be born of an imperfect person why didn't God give the grace he gave Mary to Judah, Rahab, Ruth, David, and Solomon?

This seems logical to me that sin would still be in Jesus' family line because his ancestors sinned, simply because of the verse that says "Through one man sin entered the world". If we all sin because Adam sinned then the belief that God cannot be born of a sinful person is kind of shot down in midflight, unless God gave special grace to over 200 people...including Adam.

That of course brings up another question of how do we get our sin nature? Are we born with a tainted spirit, or is our spirit tainted the moment we first sin? If the latter is the case where does the knowledge of evil come from? If the former is the case then who isn't to say that a miscarried infant goes to hell when it dies?

We could go off on an entire tangent on that one alone. And before anyone jumps to conclusions, no I do not believe that miscarried infants go to hell. I believe that our knowledge of evil, and therefore our ability to sin is passed through the sperm (sorry fellahs), and we are tainted the moment we do something we're not supposed to.

Protestants, be nice to the Catholics. Catholics, be nice to the Protestants. You all believe the same things about Jesus, and God. Anything else is superfluous, and doesn't count for salvation or damnation.

Slainte!
Eruliel (who has the feeling she isn't going to make herself any more popular with her Catholic or Protestant brethren)

OneChristianOne · Sep 11, 2006

Eruliel said:
All my life I've understood the theology behind the Immaculate Conception has existed because a perfect God cannot reside within imperfection, or be born of imperfection.

If God cannot be born of imperfection how could Jesus' ancestor Judah be sinful, and yet sire the entirety of Jesus' family tree?If God cannot be born of an imperfect person why didn't God give the grace he gave Mary to Judah, Rahab, Ruth, David, and Solomon?

This seems logical to me that sin would still be in Jesus' family line because his ancestors sinned, simply because of the verse that says "Through one man sin entered the world". If we all sin because Adam sinned then the belief that God cannot be born of a sinful person is kind of shot down in midflight, unless God gave special grace to over 200 people...including Adam.

That of course brings up another question of how do we get our sin nature? Are we born with a tainted spirit, or is our spirit tainted the moment we first sin? If the latter is the case where does the knowledge of evil come from? If the former is the case then who isn't to say that a miscarried infant goes to hell when it dies?

We could go off on an entire tangent on that one alone. And before anyone jumps to conclusions, no I do not believe that miscarried infants go to hell. I believe that our knowledge of evil, and therefore our ability to sin is passed through the sperm (sorry fellahs), and we are tainted the moment we do something we're not supposed to.

Protestants, be nice to the Catholics. Catholics, be nice to the Protestants. You all believe the same things about Jesus, and God. Anything else is superfluous, and doesn't count for salvation or damnation.

Slainte!
Eruliel (who has the feeling she isn't going to make herself any more popular with her Catholic or Protestant brethren)

This is what I understand of miscarried infants, although it's not mentioned much anymore...........the CC always said they went to a place called Limbo........a place of no suffering.

I also understand that we are all born tainted with original sin. The CC believes that if we aren't baptized, and die, we go to hell. The CC believes it's the responsibility of catholic parents to have their children baptized shortly after birth. They believe baptism takes away the punishment due to original sin. So, if that child dies, they won't go to hell. The protestants don't believe this from what I understand. They dedicate their children instead of having them baptized.

BigNorsk · Sep 11, 2006

The basic thing is that original sin comes to us through our fathers not our mothers. We didn't all die because Eve sinned, even though she ate of the fruit first, we died because Adam sinned.

Concerning infants, we see in the Bible how God deals with us, but it doesn't preclude other ways. For instance we see that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit before birth. He didn't read or hear scripture, God did it some other way.

We don't know that all who die so young are saved, that doesn't seem to be consistent with scripture either, but pretty clearly at least some are. Some teach all, some teach children of believing parents and so on. The real answer is we aren't exactly told, but we do know that what God does will truly be right.

Marv

a_ntv · Sep 12, 2006

BigNorsk said:
The basic thing is that original sin comes to us through our fathers not our mothers. We didn't all die because Eve sinned, even though she ate of the fruit first, we died because Adam sinned.

That is a very protestant idea (taken by the worse Agustine), that was NEVER believed by the Catholic Church.

Mary birth was simply the first RESULT of Christ Redemption. God is over the time.

If you dont like the title 'Immaculate conception', youcan use the older title for Mary: Mary is the 'All Saint'

Eruliel said:
Protestants, be nice to the Catholics. Catholics, be nice to the Protestants. You all believe the same things about Jesus, and God. Anything else is superfluous, and doesn't count for salvation or damnation.

No at all !!!

Many protestants ad instance lack of a proper doctrine on the seven sacraments that is BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL. (this do not means that they cannot be saved...the mercy of God is limitless).

Once we have been teached by the Apostles and by the Holy Spirit through the Church, we cannot throw away even a comma of the Truth, lack of respect for He who is the Truth, to get a false consensus. But we shall always get a better understanding of the Truth

sempervirens · Sep 12, 2006

Eruliel said:
All my life I've understood the theology behind the Immaculate Conception has existed because a perfect God cannot reside within imperfection, or be born of imperfection.

This is a common misconception - even among catholics. The RCC does not teach that the IC was somehow necessary for the incarnation. It seems fitting and proper that Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant would be unblemished by sin - but its not a requirement - God is God - he can do what he wants.

Rather the IC has to do with Mary's role as the New Eve. In catholic theology original sin is not "original guilt" - its that we are all born missing a God shaped piece of the soul as a result of the fall. Baptism fills this hole with God's grace. By a particular favor of God Mary is filled with this grace at her conception - so that at the visitation she is in state that Eve was in the Garden. Mary obeys God where Eve did not, setting in motion the events which will unwind the fall in the person of the new Adam - Jesus. But Mary is a creature like all of us and in need of a savior as well - we were all destined for death after the fall - God just happened to catch her before she fell down the hole that he reaches down into to pick the rest of us out of.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2006

My perspective...

Here's what we know about Mary:

Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55
Luke 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4
John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14

On the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it.
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.

IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.

It was recently made dogma in the Catholic Church.

My $0.01...

Pax

- Josiah

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2006

sempervirens said:
This is a common misconception - even among catholics. The RCC does not teach that the IC was somehow necessary for the incarnation. It seems fitting and proper that Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant would be unblemished by sin - but its not a requirement - God is God - he can do what he wants.

Rather the IC has to do with Mary's role as the New Eve. In catholic theology original sin is not "original guilt" - its that we are all born missing a God shaped piece of the soul as a result of the fall. Baptism fills this hole with God's grace. By a particular favor of God Mary is filled with this grace at her conception - so that at the visitation she is in state that Eve was in the Garden. Mary obeys God where Eve did not, setting in motion the events which will unwind the fall in the person of the new Adam - Jesus. But Mary is a creature like all of us and in need of a savior as well - we were all destined for death after the fall - God just happened to catch her before she fell down the hole that he reaches down into to pick the rest of us out of.

An EXCELLENT and very helpful explaination.

Thank you!

- Josiah

IfIonlyhadabrain · Sep 12, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:
No Scripture remotely confirms it.

Actually, this isn't true. No scripture clearly confirms it, but the idea of the Immaculate Conception is given some credence in the scripture passage Luke 1:28.

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The key phrase being "full of grace" as has been bolded. This is understood as filled with grace completely. Or more poetically, overflowing with grace. This could not have been said about anyone else, except for Christ Himself, as everyone else, having been conceived with Original Sin, were in some form deficient of grace. Though God gives grace abundantly, freely, and eternally, sin reduces the amount of grace that we receive, not because God doesn't give as much anymore, but because we have chosen to accept less, or to reject it outrightly. Original Sin, by its very nature, causes such deficiencies of grace, we are not "full" of grace when we are born, but are tainted, and born into sin.

As we understand it, in being "full of grace" Mary could not have sinned priorly, nor could she have been born with Original Sin.

Of course, this is interpretation which flows naturally from our theological understanding of grace. The Scripture does not state explicitly that Mary was immaculately conceived. However, as I stated at the beginning of this post, it is false to say that Scripture doesn't even remotely confirm this belief.

BBAS 64 · Sep 12, 2006

a_ntv said:
That is a very protestant idea (taken by the worse Agustine), that was NEVER believed by the Catholic Church.

Mary birth was simply the first RESULT of Christ Redemption. God is over the time.

If you dont like the title 'Immaculate conception', youcan use the older title for Mary: Mary is the 'All Saint'

No at all !!!

Many protestants ad instance lack of a proper doctrine on the seven sacraments that is BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL. (this do not means that they cannot be saved...the mercy of God is limitless).

Once we have been teached by the Apostles and by the Holy Spirit through the Church, we cannot throw away even a comma of the Truth, lack of respect for He who is the Truth, to get a false consensus. But we shall always get a better understanding of the Truth

Good Day, a_ntv

A truly novel take on Augustine.

In 390 he was ordained to the priesthood and moved to Hippo; there he established another community with several of his friends who had followed him from Tagaste. Five years later he was elected Bishop and made vicar to Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, whom he succeeded the following year.

Do tell to which Church was elected as bishop. As a Bishop was his job not to teach?

Peace to u,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Sep 12, 2006

CaliforniaJosiah said:
My perspective...

Here's what we know about Mary:

Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55
Luke 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4
John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14

On the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it.
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.

IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.

It was recently made dogma in the Catholic Church.

My $0.01...

Pax

- Josiah

.

Good Day, CJ

Some RC historains and theologians agree with your assesment.

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

Peace to u,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Sep 12, 2006

IfIonlyhadabrain said:
Actually, this isn't true. No scripture clearly confirms it, but the idea of the Immaculate Conception is given some credence in the scripture passage Luke 1:28.

The key phrase being "full of grace" as has been bolded. This is understood as filled with grace completely. Or more poetically, overflowing with grace. This could not have been said about anyone else, except for Christ Himself, as everyone else, having been conceived with Original Sin, were in some form deficient of grace. Though God gives grace abundantly, freely, and eternally, sin reduces the amount of grace that we receive, not because God doesn't give as much anymore, but because we have chosen to accept less, or to reject it outrightly. Original Sin, by its very nature, causes such deficiencies of grace, we are not "full" of grace when we are born, but are tainted, and born into sin.

As we understand it, in being "full of grace" Mary could not have sinned priorly, nor could she have been born with Original Sin.

Of course, this is interpretation which flows naturally from our theological understanding of grace. The Scripture does not state explicitly that Mary was immaculately conceived. However, as I stated at the beginning of this post, it is false to say that Scripture doesn't even remotely confirm this belief.

Good Day,

I am surprised that you use the pronoun "we" as with in your own denomination some disagree on your view of Luke.

"However, in our judgment there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with the symbolism of the Daughter of Zion or the Ark of the Covenant." (Mary in the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, editors {Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978}, p. 134

Your use of the "we" here is an overstatment of the facts, there are some who hold your view, but there are others that do not.

Peace to u,

Bill

IfIonlyhadabrain · Sep 12, 2006

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day,

I am surprised that you use the pronoun "we" as with in your own denomination some disagree on your view of Luke.

"However, in our judgment there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with the symbolism of the Daughter of Zion or the Ark of the Covenant." (Mary in the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, editors {Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978}, p. 134

Your use of the "we" here is an overstatment of the facts, there are some who hold your view, but there are others that do not.

Peace to u,

Bill

Actually, it is not an overstatement of facts. Yes, there are some who hold that it was necessary that Mary be sinless in order to house Jesus in her womb, like the Ark of the Covenant. While this may be a lovely correlation, it is not something that I hold to be necessarily true, and it is not something that I conveyed, or presented in my previous post. I don't see why you attributed that to me.

As far as Mary being the Daughter Zion, again, this is not something that I put forth in my post, it is something that you falsely attributed to me. While that symbolism and correlation can be made between the Church and Mary, and is, in fact, a concept which Pope Benedict XVI has supported, it is not a correlation that must necessarily be made through the understanding of Luke which I posted.

The following is taken from the Catholic Answers website, and is held doctrinal in the Catholic Church (which means that my characterization of the position as "ours" is a correct one):

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angels greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angels visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

christianmomof3 · Sep 12, 2006

Eruliel said:
All my life I've understood the theology behind the Immaculate Conception has existed because a perfect God cannot reside within imperfection, or be born of imperfection.

If God cannot be born of imperfection how could Jesus' ancestor Judah be sinful, and yet sire the entirety of Jesus' family tree?If God cannot be born of an imperfect person why didn't God give the grace he gave Mary to Judah, Rahab, Ruth, David, and Solomon?

This seems logical to me that sin would still be in Jesus' family line because his ancestors sinned, simply because of the verse that says "Through one man sin entered the world". If we all sin because Adam sinned then the belief that God cannot be born of a sinful person is kind of shot down in midflight, unless God gave special grace to over 200 people...including Adam.

That of course brings up another question of how do we get our sin nature? Are we born with a tainted spirit, or is our spirit tainted the moment we first sin? If the latter is the case where does the knowledge of evil come from? If the former is the case then who isn't to say that a miscarried infant goes to hell when it dies?

We could go off on an entire tangent on that one alone. And before anyone jumps to conclusions, no I do not believe that miscarried infants go to hell. I believe that our knowledge of evil, and therefore our ability to sin is passed through the sperm (sorry fellahs), and we are tainted the moment we do something we're not supposed to.

Protestants, be nice to the Catholics. Catholics, be nice to the Protestants. You all believe the same things about Jesus, and God. Anything else is superfluous, and doesn't count for salvation or damnation.

Slainte!
Eruliel (who has the feeling she isn't going to make herself any more popular with her Catholic or Protestant brethren)

Well, I looked up immaculate conception and found this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
which states that none of the Christian groups agree or have a concensus about the immaculate conception.
Therefore, you certainly will not find one here either.

As far as my own understanding of things, I believe that when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they took the sinful nature into themselves. This is like a poison that was taken into them and this poison leads eventually to death. We have all inherited this sinful nature which is independance from God and we see that this has been passed on to all of mankind because we all die. It seems that before taking in the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil through an independant act of disobedience to God, that death was not in man's future. But, death was a result of the fall. Therefore, since we all will die, we have all inherited this sinful nature.

As far as this idea that Christ cannot reside within imperfection, I am not sure that I understand it completely. I think that, according to that article, it is more of a RCC concept and I am not Catholic, so I am not clear about their beliefs on that.

We are told that Christ had the likeness of the flesh, but not the flesh itself - or something like that. He was like the brass serpent that was held up by Moses - it looked like a serpent, but was not actually one with the poison of a serpent. However, on the cross, He was made sin for us - this was when He cried out to the Father about forsaking Him - during those 3 hours, the Father was judging sin within Him for our sake so that the Lord could then forgive all of us. (I probably did not explain that well, and I am not claiming to be an expert here so I do not want a bunch of rude people griping me out if I got a bit confused - please just clarify things kindly and gently if it is necessary.)

As far as all of the sinners in the geneology of Christ, I think that is to show that He died for all of us sinners and that all of us sinners can bring forth Christ - we can be filled with Him as our life and express His life. If His ancestory was a bunch of perfect people, where would that leave all of us poor sinners?

BBAS 64 · Sep 12, 2006

IfIonlyhadabrain said:
Actually, it is not an overstatement of facts. Yes, there are some who hold that it was necessary that Mary be sinless in order to house Jesus in her womb, like the Ark of the Covenant. While this may be a lovely correlation, it is not something that I hold to be necessarily true, and it is not something that I conveyed, or presented in my previous post. I don't see why you attributed that to me.

As far as Mary being the Daughter Zion, again, this is not something that I put forth in my post, it is something that you falsely attributed to me. While that symbolism and correlation can be made between the Church and Mary, and is, in fact, a concept which Pope Benedict XVI has supported, it is not a correlation that must necessarily be made through the understanding of Luke which I posted.

The following is taken from the Catholic Answers website, and is held doctrinal in the Catholic Church (which means that my characterization of the position as "ours" is a correct one):

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Good Day,IfIonlyhad

I find it really funny when Catholic answers "plays" a Greek scholar role

The NAB "renders"

And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

This is a RC translation, seems CA needs to update there views. Benedict has an view, that is good he is allowed to have one.... as are you, me and other RC'S. The vaidlity of those views are an other matter.

Peace to u,

Bill

The Prokeimenon! · Sep 12, 2006

christianmomof3 said:
Well, I looked up immaculate conception and found this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception which states that none of the Christian groups agree or have a concensus about the immaculate conception

Indeed. The Orthodox Church rejects the Immaculate Conception. (I'm sure some non-Orthodox will be happy to disagree and let us know what we actually believe... )

The IC is based on Augustine's understanding of original sin, which the Orthodox Church rejects altogether. We venerate St. Augustine as a true image of repentance, and as a pious saint, but we pretty much follow none of his theology.

Rdr Moses

WarriorAngel · Sep 12, 2006

Yes I am sure that is true Moses. Although he lived b4 the schism.
We wont go there..

Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38, 48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7, 35, 48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted. [81] Mary's complete exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): "If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema." Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.

The Office of the Blessed Virgin applies to Mary many passages concerning the spouse in the Canticle of Canticles [13] and also concerning Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs 8:22-31 [14]. The application to Mary of a "garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up" mentioned in Canticles 4:12 is only a particular instance of what has been said above. [15] Besides, Sara, Debbora, Judith, and Esther are variously used as figures of Mary; the ark of the Covenant, over which the presence of God manifested itself, is used as the figure of Mary carrying God Incarnate within her womb. But especially Eve, the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), is considered as a type of Mary who is the mother of all the living in the order of grace [16].

Unity of the Canticle
The commentator just mentioned and other exegetes start from the natural conviction that the poem, simply called the Song of Songs and handed down to posterity as a book, must be regarded as a homogeneous whole. It is evident that the three clearly distinguished roles of bridegroom, bride, and chorus maintain their plainly defined characters from beginning to end; in the same way certain other designations, as "beloved", "friend", etc., and certain refrains keep recurring. Moreover, several parts apparently repeat one another, and a peculiar phraseology is found throughout the book. The attempt has, however, been made to resolve the poem into separate songs (some twenty in all); thus has been tried by Herder, Eichhorn, Goethe, Reuss, Stade, Budde, and Siegfried. But It has been found exceedingly difficult to separate these songs from one another, and to give to each lyric a meaning dlstinctly its own. Goethe believed this impossible, and it is necessary to resort to a working over of the songs by the person who collected them. But in this everything would depend on a vague personal impression. It is true that a mutual dependence of all the parts cannot be maintained in the secular (historical) interpretation. For, even in the historical hypothesis, the attempt to obtain a flawless drama is successful only when arbitrary additions are made which permit the transition from one scene to another, but these interpolations have no foundation in the text itself. Tradition also knows nothing of genuine dramatic poetry among the Hebrews, nor is the Semitic race more than slightly acquainted with this form of poetry. Driven by necessity, Kämpf and others even invent double roles, so that at times other personages appear along with Solomon and the Sulamitess; yet it cannot be said that any one of these hypotheses has produced a probable interpretation of the entire song.

All about Mary

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2006

My perspective...

WarriorAngel said:
Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin;

I respectfully disagree...

1. Scripture never mentions Mary prior to the Announciation. Nothing about her conception. Nothing about her birth. Nothing.

2. IF "Tradition" were so abundantly clear in teaching this dogma, why does the EO disagree with the RCC on this? Don't you both claim to have received EXACTLY the same "Tradition" from the Apostles? Always have? Fully, completely, pefectly, infallibly?

[81] Mary's complete exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23): "If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema."

SIXTEENTH CENTURY!!!!

A council of the Catholic Church alone.

No Scriptures offered at all.
No Tradition offered at all.
This doesn't seem to support your position that Scripture and Tradition both teach this Dogma.

Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.

But this DOMGA came directly, fully, perfectly, infallibily and completely from the Apostles - the last of whom died around 100AD? It was known, fully and dogmatically, by ALL since at least 100 AD? East and West? Where was this DOGMA for those 300 years? Was it suddenly remembered 300+ years later? Only by those in the West?

Again, it's not my position that this concept is true or false - I'm only questioning if it's confirmed by Scripture (it doesn't even seem well supported by Tradition alone). That doesn't make it false, of course.

Thank you.

My $0.01

Pax

- Josiah

.

a_ntv · Sep 12, 2006

sempervirens said:
This is a common misconception - even among catholics. The RCC does not teach that the IC was somehow necessary for the incarnation. It seems fitting and proper that Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant would be unblemished by sin - but its not a requirement - God is God - he can do what he wants.

Rather the IC has to do with Mary's role as the New Eve. In catholic theology original sin is not "original guilt" - its that we are all born missing a God shaped piece of the soul as a result of the fall. Baptism fills this hole with God's grace. By a particular favor of God Mary is filled with this grace at her conception - so that at the visitation she is in state that Eve was in the Garden. Mary obeys God where Eve did not, setting in motion the events which will unwind the fall in the person of the new Adam - Jesus. But Mary is a creature like all of us and in need of a savior as well - we were all destined for death after the fall - God just happened to catch her before she fell down the hole that he reaches down into to pick the rest of us out of.

A VERY GOOD EXPLANATION

BBAS 64 said:
A truly novel take on Augustine.
In 390 he was ordained to the priesthood and moved to Hippo; there he established another community with several of his friends who had followed him from Tagaste. Five years later he was elected Bishop and made vicar to Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, whom he succeeded the following year.

Do tell to which Church was elected as bishop. As a Bishop was his job not to teach?

...

Not any teaching of any bishop is true doctrine. Catholic Church never agreed with St Augustin on many sides of his theology of the original sin: We do NOT agree that the original sin is hereditated by the father, we do NOT agree that the original sin is generated in any man by the sexual act of the parents, we do NOT agree to consider the original sin as a "guilty", we prefer to use the word "sin", where sin is 'lackness of God', sin is 'a illness of the soul'.

MosestheBlack said:
Indeed. The Orthodox Church rejects the Immaculate Conception. (I'm sure some non-Orthodox will be happy to disagree and let us know what we actually believe... )

The IC is based on Augustine's understanding of original sin, which the Orthodox Church rejects altogether. We venerate St. Augustine as a true image of repentance, and as a pious saint, but we pretty much follow none of his theology.

Rdr Moses

Dear Moses, even if the EO Church becamed 'protestantized', Catholic Church shall kept un-touched the true doctrine (and, when true doctrines are in danger, CC shall define them as 'dogma' to save them: ok it is unpleasant and non-ecumenic, but CC follows the Truth, not the consunsus as sometime EO does).

The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation.
Nicholas Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century (cf. Jugie _L'Immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale_, p. 2130, but the great Cabasilas' (1371) teaching on the immaculate conception (_In nativitatem_ [PO 19, pp. 468-482]; _Indormitionem_ [PO 19, pp. 498-504]) still had great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch Gregory Palamas (1446-1452) whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today (_Dehypapante_; _De annuntiatione_; _De dormitione_ [PG 151]; also _In Christi genealogiam_ and _In praesentationem_ [edit.K. Sophocles, _Tou en hagiois patros emon Gregoriou tou Palama homiliai_, Athens, 1861]).
Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the "novel" doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the _Staroviery_ (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. [Cf. N. Subbotin, _Materialy dlja istorii Roskola_, Vol. IV (Moscow, 1878), pp. 39-50, 229, and Vol. 1 (Moscow, 1874), p.457.] This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians.
The OrthodoxChurch, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.
(see http://www.cin.org/imconcep.html)

Please read St Nicolas Cabasilas (EO) Homely on Dormition...

stone · Sep 12, 2006

Mary is not the only woman to have become pregnant from the holy spirit and received the news of the pregnancy before hand from an angel.

original sin, is a lie from satan as far as i know.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Sep 12, 2006

The pregnancy of Mary was by no means related to the birth of John the Baptist and I'm certainly hoping I'm reading that wrong.

A Question About The Immaculate Conception

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Contributor

Ens Liturgicum

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

pursuing Christ

Contributor

like unto bees about a honeycomb

I close my eyes and see you smile

Well-Known Member

Ens Liturgicum

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency