The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[bbbbbbb]

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.

The difficult thing to understand is why, when it began to stretch the bounds of reason someone didn't just pipe up and point out that the emperor (these absurd allegations) had no clothes (reality).

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm sure plenty of people did, but they got ran over by the bandwagon.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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.

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?

I'm not seeing the "need' for the doctrine either. 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. Pretty sure he wasn't requiring it but it seemed nice so I did it anyway.
Did I lose you there?
On Mary, few that ask her for intersession see it as a requirement. But they do it anyway. Out of love for Christ. Even Catholics are not required to seek prayers from Mary(except when their little in their schools and the nun has a ruler )
That's my main issue with this being Dogma. But I also understand being Orthodox that I see dogma a bit different than the Catholic.
No I don't see the need in anything about honoring Mary. But I'm kinda Wilford Brimley on that.

 

[Albion]

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?

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 not seeing the "need' for the doctrine either.

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.

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.

Not at all what I was referring to.

On Mary, few that ask her for intersession see it as a requirement.

Simple requests for intercession weren't the issue.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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.
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.
Mary is awesome to me. It's her motherhood that touches my heart so deeply. I never even really thought much about her for the better part of my life. To me she was Jesus' mom. Just a normal Hebrew girl who happened to be the one chosen. And I pretty much just left it there.
Then that husband of mine taught me a study technique that went a bit beyond the study of history in the normal manner. He said if you really want to understand someone as best you can, that you should try wearing their shoes. Meaning: Imagine your self as that person. I was Baptist when I began trying that. I didn't get around to trying that with mary for about five years. Then someone gave my husband a really nice rosary. He, being the baptist pastor, read up on it and set it on the shelf. So it being on my mind I tried it with Mary. As my mind walked through birthing, raising, walking with and watching my Son die, be Resurrected and Ascended. I never viewed her the same.But moreover, I never saw Christ the same or with such love.

 

[Albion]

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.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is an expression of love toward Christ. Hmmm. I don't really think that makes much of a case when it's asked if the idea (IC) is true or not.

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.

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?

 

[James Is Back]

Can you explain to me without going into full detail what the Immaculate Conception is because I'm not familiar with Catholic dogma?

 

[Albion]

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.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Yeah, we were discussing that point a few posts back. I think the Catholics draw the line with Mary's mother, rather than taking it logically all the way back because there are some real worms in that can.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

But it has no bearing on the dogma, as stated, which is my point.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

I've read many. Only one is considered authoritative.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

But it has no bearing on the dogma, as stated, which is my point.

That would be apples and oranges.

 

[Albion]

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.

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Mama, this is how we take it, too. We think God would want the mother of His Son to be perfect, and so she was made that way. We think Jesus wanted his mother to be perfect, and so she was made that way. And we think the Holy Spirit would want His spouse to be perfect, and so she was made that way. And we honor the Mother of our Lord because we want to emulate our Lord to the fullest, and we know He follows our Father's commandment to honor thy father and mother.
I don't really get into all the nit-picky stuff. I have thoughts on it all, but it's my own private thought. I also have a thought that we do know what our Lord looks like...

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

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.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Excommunication, you're right, is not sending someone to hell. It's more like chemotherapy-you gotta be rough with it, and there might be collateral damage, but the intent is to get your head turned around straight.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception, there's a lot of levels of belief. You can accept it as truth, and not think too much of it (like how I posted-God wanted a perfect mother for his son, and so he made it happen). You can dig deeper, and get some nuances, deeper still and get more, and you can get down into the nitty gritty, and start on the peripheral stuff that's not required. But Protestants don't usually get that, and so they dig into the periphery, and ignore the central issue.