Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is indeed a key point to be made whenever this issue comes up...yet it usually does not.
Just as with the other Marian doctrines--the Assumption, ever-virgin, co-redeemer of the world, etc.--this is grounded in nothing more than the all-too human impulse to heap honors upon a revered personality, even to the point of absurdity.
Look at how we lionize some of our political figures after death, even those who were quite flawed persons in life. We completely make-over their history yet we (some of us, that is) think that the same wasn't done by people of an earlier time.
That is indeed a key point to be made whenever this issue comes up...yet it usually does not.
Just as with the other Marian doctrines--the Assumption, ever-virgin, co-redeemer of the world, etc.--this is grounded in nothing more than the all-too human impulse to heap honors upon a revered personality, even to the point of absurdity.
Look at how we lionize some of our political figures after death, even those who were quite flawed persons in life. We completely make-over their history yet we (some of us, that is) think that the same wasn't done by people of an earlier time.
As I said...this is typical of humans to do. And yes, they also did it with their own political leaders, just as we tend to do with ours. So also with Mary.I'm quite sure people of an earlier time spoke glowing lionization's about their political leaders. Now what does this have to do with Mary? Are we equating her with such or was that just as abstract as you could think of?
It's a felt need to glorify anyone, particularly after death, by heaping up honors upon their memory until they become excessive. A miracle, of course, would be "tops," if you were doing that.I'm not seeing the "need' for the doctrine either.
Not at all what I was referring to.But I don't see the need in many things. Even some things I do.
Like wearing a nice dress and putting the nice tablecloth on with flowers and candles because the husband is coming home from work in an hour.
Simple requests for intercession weren't the issue.On Mary, few that ask her for intersession see it as a requirement.
As I said...this is typical of humans to do. And yes, they also did it with their own political leaders, just as we tend to do with ours. So also with Mary.
It's a felt need to glorify anyone, particularly after death, by heaping up honors upon their memory until they become excessive. A miracle, of course, would be "tops," if you were doing that.
Not at all what I was referring to.
Simple requests for intercession weren't the issue.
I know that's not what you were referring to but that's what it's about.It's an expression of love toward Christ.
If "how it's done" is rejected, the Immaculate Conception would be among the first things to go, wouldn't you say--that and Transubstantiation?I agree on the issue. It should not be dogma. As a teaching, I don't have much issue with it at all. I can't honestly even say it's an exaggeration. But it's not the belief i hold onto. Mine is a good bit less specific in timing and detail. It's more of a concept to me rather than a "how it's done' manual.
Can you explain to me without going into full detail what the Immaculate Conception is because I'm not familiar with Catholic dogma?
A doctrine that is obligatory for Roman Catholics (and believed by a few other churches also) that from the moment of Mary's conception in her mother's womb God make a special decision keeping her from Original Sin, the sin of Adam and Eve that this church and many others teach that we all are born with as a consequence of the Fall of Mankind in the Garden of Eden.
So you do see my issue with it. Not a bad 'in a nut shell' explanation. But some explain it quite a bit more flexible. But that's also the way I read it and why it's not a belief I hold. He virginity and her being held blameless is enough for me. The concept of going back to the moment her mother conceived her makes me dizzy. I mean why not go way back through the genealogy? I guess that wouldn't work though. Jesus has some characters in his genealogy.
That has been a rather thorny issue. Up through the late middle ages the death of Mary was taken for granted and there is a wealth of iconography depicting it. However, with the development of other strands of Marian dogma her death became a problematic issue (the wages of sin, after all, is death, and if one has no sin then one need not receive the wages of sin) for theologians so that the concept of a deathless assumption of Mary grew to great popularity.
I have a thread about the topic here - http://www.christianforums.com/t7533697-48/ - if you would care to join the discussion.
Good observation. Have you read John's epistles along with the Protoevangelium of James or Tertulian or Clement of Alexandria or the Trullo Council or John of Damascus or Valentinus or Marcion about the issue?
That would be apples and oranges.But it has no bearing on the dogma, as stated, which is my point.
This is Mama's immaculate belief of Mary's conception.
At that very moment of conception God created His perfect vessel to be the Mother of Our Lord. Perfect because He made her.
No need to go further, add too or read any more into it than that.
This is Mama's immaculate belief of Mary's conception.
At that very moment of conception God created His perfect vessel to be the Mother of Our Lord. Perfect because He made her.
No need to go further, add too or read any more into it than that.
Now everything I do because of my belief, is the nice dress, fine linen tablecloth, flowers and candle. And of coarse a kiss. And yes I iron the table cloth and napkins. It makes me hungry in a good way.
And I can see you read more into what I wrote than was written.As a speculation only, I suppose you are on as firm grounds as someone else who thinks Mary gave birth through her nostrils. IOW I agree that dogmatizing legends like this one is the more critical issue.
But you know, such "pious opinions" are really misplaced IMHO. We don't dispute the fact that a mortal gave birth to God. That's something that is always considered remarkable because God deigned to become one of his creatures and to be born in the manner of one of his creatures. But at the same time people feel that it's necessary to build some wall of perfection around Mary as though that might keep the perfectly natural way that humans come into the world from being too ordinary.
And I can see you read more into what I wrote than was written.
I didn't say, not mortal, nor did I even allude to sinless. Just perfect because God made her. I could have said all but the motherhood part about you. even not believing you were born through your mother's nostrils.
I'm making a point here. We agree dogmatizing (I think I just invented a word) it was one of those , "You chose poorly' moments. I'd even fathom to guess most but the Catholic would agree with that.
So we are left with the teaching. Shouldn't we pick that apart by the words used in the Catechism? It get's a bit more difficult then. We tend to add to it what is not written without even trying to.
Me and you both read that Catechism as saying what you said a few post back. But that's not really what it says. It has a lot more wiggle-room in it.
I'm not so sure my posted belief wouldn't fit into it. But the heart of the beliefs are different.
So let's try this again:
At the moment Albion was conceived, God created the perfect Albion. Perfect because God made him. Perfect at what? Being Albion.
your gonna have to show me all that in the catechism concerning the Immaculate Conception. I really don't think it's that long a statement. I do understand you might buch a lot of stuff together from the CCC and come up with that theory but you'd need to want to. I don't equate excommunication with sent to the lake of fire. Pretty sure even the Catholic Church doesn't suppose quite that much authority. They may warn of it but that's a bit less than stating it outright and zapping one into hellfire.The doctrines of your church have quite a lot of latitude regarding this issue. You will not be damned to hell if you don't believe nor if you do believe it. That is true in all denominations save one, the Catholic Church. It is their Cathechism which dogmatically states that this is a dogma which must be believed or you will be committing a mortal sin which will send you to the Lake of Fire for eternity.
your gonna have to show me all that in the catechism concerning the Immaculate Conception. I really don't think it's that long a statement. I do understand you might buch a lot of stuff together from the CCC and come up with that theory but you'd need to want to. I don't equate excommunication with sent to the lake of fire. Pretty sure even the Catholic Church doesn't suppose quite that much authority. They may warn of it but that's a bit less than stating it outright and zapping one into hellfire.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?