- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI meant of course that Paul didn't mention Mary specifically.
yes he does, he mentions everybody,
(Romans 5:12) 12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread [b]to all men because they had all sinned—.
the reference is of course to mankind.[/b]
The point is that according to the dogma of the immaculate conception, Mary was a special case.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think this is too far out, if you adjust the explanation to remove anachronisms like genetics. I think you capture the unease with the incongruity of the flesh of the son of god being formed from the flesh of somebody who is tainted by original sin.
mmm, i dont know why it is important myself, for even though my father is a catholic, he is, well, quite liberal with his beliefs. In my own mind i thought that perhaps it had something to do with the fact that Christ is considered to be born as perfect, i.e, sinless, by all christians, therefore how can one explain the genetic imperfection that wo ...[text shortened]... oncile this, but then when i discovered how old the idea was, naturally, i dismissed the theory.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe reference was to the New Catholic encyclopaedia, volume, date of publishing and page reference numbers have also been given. i tried to corroborate this myself but i am having difficulty in doing so. i therefore have taken it upon trust that this is so. secondly, the sin offering was not given in respect of birth, for as you have stated, this is not a sin, but of being unclean as prescribed in the Law, which as Paul states, was given, to make 'sin manifest'.
the reference was to the New Catholic encyclopaedia, volume, date of publishing and page reference numbers have also been given. i tried to corroborate this myself but i am having difficulty in doing so. i therefore have taken it upon trust that this is so. secondly, the sin offering was not given in respect of birth, for as you have stated, this i ...[text shortened]... dly as Paul stated, as a natural descendent of Adam, she would have inherited sin. Romans 5:12
I seriously that however that that is what the author intended. The source you derive these quotes deliberately omits crucial parts of the sentence to distort the meaning. For example, when discussing the Trinity, you quoted from the encyclopedia:
Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday.
In actual fact, the full quote is
Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned Thomistic understanding of the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday.
In full, you can see that Bracken only meant that the Thomistic understanding of the Trinity is not preached in church; your source however mangles the quote to suggest that priests never preach the Trinity.
But if she cannot afford enough for a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and [b]the priest must make atonement for her, and she must be clean.’”[/b]
Yes, these are the purity laws. Jesus had to abide by them (when presented in the temple), as did Mary. However, they do not suggest personal sin. Giving birth is not a sin.
secondly as Paul stated, as a natural descendent of Adam, she would have inherited sin. Romans 5:12
There are logical limits to this. Obviously it excludes Jesus Christ because St Paul also refers to him as the innocent lamb. In his sacrifice, just like the paschal lamb, he must be pure. Obviously it also excludes children who are incapable of sin. There also those mentioned in Luke 1:6 who are righteous and serve God blamelessly, suggesting they too are sinless (although Catholics would still hold they suffered original sin.) So Catholics would interpret the verse 'all have sinned' as referring to St. Paul's audience (this is after all a pastoral letter intended for the Romans) and as a parenthesis.
06 Jan 10
3 edits
mmm, ok, Conrau, even if we allow that one has used partial quotations to cite what is expedient to ones argument, the intent was to assert not that priests never preach the trinity as you have suggested, merely that there may have been some reservations in doing so. Never the less, it is a separate argument.
If you wish to contest the quotation from the New Catholic encyclopaedia, well, be my guest, however, it still, does not answer, why Mary should be viewed as a special case and why this thing is so important to Catholics. i myself would be interested in finding out why.
As for this latter statement, it is not wholly applicable, for we are referring not to sin, as the resultant effect of some misdemeanour, but as the natural consequence of inherited imperfection. Christ is excluded because he was not a descendent of Adam, however, all others are, including his natural mother, as the lineage in scripture clearly indicates. To try to assert that it was Pauls intent merely to apply it to his immediate audience i find quite incredulous, given the content of the actual text, nor do i think it can be construed as such, for Paul is clearly speaking of all persons from Adams descent, not merely the Roman christians.
never the less, its a religious belief, and even if i myself feel that it is unsubstantiated in scripture, I, like the original poster, would like to know why it is important to Catholics. Is it an attempt to address the issue so eloquently put by Lord shark, the unease with the incongruity of the flesh of the son of god being formed from the flesh of somebody who is tainted by original sin?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you wish to contest the quotation from the New Catholic encyclopaedia, well, be my guest, however, it still, does not answer, why Mary should be viewed as a special case and why this thing is so important to Catholics. i myself would be interested in finding out why.
mmm, ok, Conrau, even if we allow that one has used partial quotations to cite what is expedient to ones argument, the intent was to assert not that priests never preach the trinity as you have suggested, merely that there may have been some reservations in doing so. Never the less, it is a separate argument.
If you wish to contest the quotation ...[text shortened]... flesh of the son of god being formed from the flesh of somebody who is tainted by original sin?
I do contest it. There is a huge difference between preaching the Thomistic understanding of the Trinity and preaching the Trinity simply. Likewise, a similar distortion could have happened in this quotation. The Catholic Church teaches that doctrine has its basis in Scripture and then derivatively from the Church Fathers. If neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers taught the Immaculate Conception, even implicitly, then the infallible declaration would be an abuse.
As for this latter statement, it is not wholly applicable, for we are referring not to sin, as the resultant effect of some misdemeanour, but as the natural consequence of inherited imperfection. Christ is excluded because he was not a descendent of Adam, however, all others are, including his natural mother, as the lineage in scripture clearly indicates. To try to assert that it was Pauls intent merely to apply it to his immediate audience i find quite incredulous, given the content of the actual text, nor do i think it can be construed as such, for Paul is clearly speaking of all persons from Adams descent, not merely the Roman christians.
The point, however, is that Mary did not inherit this imperfection. That is exactly what the Immaculate Conception means. She obeyed the Law not because she feared for her soul but because she loved her God. Being the mother of the Messiah, she had an even greater reason to follow the Law. She had been specially chosen out of all Jewish women to bear and raise the saviour of all of Israel. She had a special reason to follow the Law. In a similar way, Jesus too had to follow the Law. He was circumcised, purified in the temple, and offered sacrifices. He celebrated the passover as prescribed by the Law. Neither Mary nor Jesus did this, however, because they feared for their salvation.
Yes, I think there are logical limits to Paul's 'all' (kind of hypocritical given the way when the Scripture says 'Through Christ all things were made' or 'All the angels worshiped him', you are quite willing to change the meaning to 'all other'😉. It is true that children inherit the imperfection, as St Paul explains; it is not true to say that children have sinned. An infant cannot be called a sinner and should the infant die, we would not call the infant an unrepentant sinenr. There are limits to St. Paul's 'all'.
never the less, its a religious belief, and even if i myself feel that it is unsubstantiated in scripture, I, like the original poster, would like to know why it is important to Catholics. Is it an attempt to address the issue so eloquently put by Lord shark, the unease with the incongruity of the flesh of the son of god being formed from the flesh of somebody who is tainted by original sin?
That is one reason albeit not a good one. In Catholic and Orthodox churches, anything that touches the precious body or blood in the Eucharistic rite must be gold, or sometimes glass, and be blessed. Generally it is to be reserved only for the priest. Because we believe that Christ in the bread and wine is truly present, we are careful of desecration. For the same reason, it is also wrong to receive the body or blood in a state of mortal sin, which as St. Paul explains (1Cor 11), would be sacrilegious. So too with Mary, the bearer of Christ incarnate, some Catholics argue that she must have been pure.
This is not the sole reason or even a good reason. Christ proved very willing to mix with sinners. Catholics believe she was without sin primarily because of her privileged position in history. In the Scriptures, she is 'full of grace' and Elizabeth literally says 'rich in grace'. Throughout history, Christians have often described her as a spiritual mother of the church, even a co-redemptrix. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is part of this tradition.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOriginally posted by Conrau K
[b]If you wish to contest the quotation from the New Catholic encyclopaedia, well, be my guest, however, it still, does not answer, why Mary should be viewed as a special case and why this thing is so important to Catholics. i myself would be interested in finding out why.
I do contest it. There is a huge difference between preaching the Thomistic u ...[text shortened]... redemptrix. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is part of this tradition.[/b]
This is not the sole reason or even a good reason.
I'd be interested to see your argument for why:
"Catholics believe she was without sin primarily because of her privileged position in history."
is a good reason as it seems, prima facie, weak in comparison to this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her."
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkAgain, it is not a very compelling argument. God didn't have to preserve Mary from sin. The incarnation could have happened even if Mary were an atrocious sinner. So the incongruity does not necessarily mean that Mary was preserved from sin. Even if we concede however concede that this incongruity is a problem, it does not necessarily mean she was immaculately conceived. Perhaps, as St. Thomas of Aquinas and St Bonaventure argued, Mary became immaculate in the womb. Hence, she would not have been immaculately conceived but she would have been free of original sin at the time of Jesus' birth.
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]This is not the sole reason or even a good reason.
I'd be interested to see your argument for why:
"Catholics believe she was without sin primarily because of her privileged position in history."
is a good reason as it seems, prima facie, weak in comparison to this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Th ...[text shortened]... t moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her."[/b]
Mary's immaculate conception is a recognition of her superior role in the history of salvation. Not only is she the mother of God but the mother of the Church. In a special way, she is also called the co-Redemptrix (in that, she cooperated with Jesus' redemption) and co-Dispensatrix (because of her special role in tradition as our intercessor.) Since the Church itself is impeccable insofar as it is Christ's divine institution, and since Mary is in a special way the mother of the Church, Catholics regarded her as similarly impeccable and thus immaculately conceived.
07 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kthis is all very well Conrau, however, none of it it has any scriptural basis whatsoever, on the contrary, there can be many scriptural principles which when applied cast serious doubt on its validity. That being said, if its a religious belief, then its a religious belief.
Again, it is not a very compelling argument. God didn't have to preserve Mary from sin. The incarnation could have happened even if Mary were an atrocious sinner. So the incongruity does not necessarily mean that Mary was preserved from sin. Even if we concede however concede that this incongruity is a problem, it does not necessarily mean she was im the Church, Catholics regarded her as similarly impeccable and thus immaculately conceived.
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kwe have a perfectly valid reason for ascribing the term 'all other', considering that quite clearly Christ was a created entity, with a chronological beginning, You people on the other hand had no authority whatsoever to term the Word As God, with reference to the almighty, nor to try to infer that the term first-born is with reference to Christs pre eminence. The attempt to provide one obscure reference in the Psalms was thoroughly scurrilous! but these are petty squabbles and my head is sore with them.
[b]If you wish to contest the quotation from the New Catholic encyclopaedia, well, be my guest, however, it still, does not answer, why Mary should be viewed as a special case and why this thing is so important to Catholics. i myself would be interested in finding out why.
I do contest it. There is a huge difference between preaching the Thomistic u redemptrix. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is part of this tradition.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewe have a perfectly valid reason for ascribing the term 'all other', considering that quite clearly Christ was a created entity, with a chronological beginning, You people on the other hand had no authority whatsoever to term the Word As God, with reference to the almighty, nor to try to infer that the term first-born is with reference to Christs pre eminence. The attempt to provide one obscure reference in the Psalms was thoroughly scurrilous! but these are petty squabbles and my head is sore with them.
we have a perfectly valid reason for ascribing the term 'all other', considering that quite clearly Christ was a created entity, with a chronological beginning, You people on the other hand had no authority whatsoever to term the Word As God, with reference to the almighty, nor to try to infer that the term first-born is with reference to Christs pre ...[text shortened]... Psalms was thoroughly scurrilous! but these are petty squabbles and my head is sore with them.
Nowhere does Scripture say that Jesus is a 'created entity'. This is your own language. It refers to the Son as a begotten being. Yes, Jesus is the firstborn, because it was through him that the world was created. Firstborn really does mean 'preeminent'. The psalm is quite clear that David is the firstborn of kings, even though he is not a firstborn literally. Your interpretation that it must be a prophesy of the Messiah was simply bizarre.
07 Jan 10
3 edits
how i find this statement particularly rich from someone who took great pains to explain the 'inference', of the trinity via a semantic and philosophical approach, and i thought i was the 'King of Irony', i bow! the basis of your statement is once again a product of your own exegesis and has no scriptural basis, save a few hand picked verses on which hinge, not through an objective approach trying to harmonise the scriptures in their entirety, but through a dogma, imposed upon scripture first and fore-mostly, and a basis found thereafter through an entirely linguistic appraisal of scripture which of sheer necessity feeds on the limitations and duplicity of language, the entire basis for the acceptance of and perpetuating of this pre Christian pagan doctrine. so be it!
anyone with any sense of spirituality shall realise that Christ has many prophetic terms which are applied to him, what is really bizarre, is your failure to appreciate this!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehow i find this statement particularly rich from someone who took great pains to explain the 'inference', of the trinity via a semantic and philosophical approach, and i thought i was the 'King of Irony', i bow! the basis of your statement is once again a product of your own exegesis and has no scriptural basis, save a few hand picked verses on which hinge, not through an objective approach trying to harmonise the scriptures in their entirety, but through a dogma, imposed upon scripture first and fore-mostly, and a basis found thereafter through an entirely linguistic appraisal of scripture which of sheer necessity feeds on the limitations and duplicity of language, the entire basis for the acceptance of and perpetuating of this pre Christian pagan doctrine. so be it!
how i find this statement particularly rich from someone who took great pains to explain the 'inference', of the trinity via a semantic and philosophical approach, and i thought i was the 'King of Irony', i bow! the basis of your statement is once again a product of your own exegesis and has no scriptural basis, save a few hand picked verses on which ...[text shortened]... terms which are applied to him, what is really bizarre, is your failure to appreciate this!
I have not sought to justify the Immaculate Conception. I only sought to challenge your statement that the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that it has no scriptural or patristic basis. Follow the context. The Immaculate Conception is clearly not a pagan doctrine either. It relies completely on the doctrine of the Original Sin and Redemption, which is a distinctly Christian view of history. The Immaculate Conception presupposes that original sin is real and that it is only destroyed in the redemption. It posits simply that Mary, as the Mother of Christ and the woman in Revelations whom the dragon can never enslave, was redeemed from original sin at the moment of conception. There is nothing remotely pagan about it.
anyone with any sense of spirituality shall realise that Christ has many prophetic terms which are applied to him, what is really bizarre, is your failure to appreciate this!
What have I failed to appreciate?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOriginally posted by Conrau K
Again, it is not a very compelling argument. God didn't have to preserve Mary from sin. The incarnation could have happened even if Mary were an atrocious sinner. So the incongruity does not necessarily mean that Mary was preserved from sin. Even if we concede however concede that this incongruity is a problem, it does not necessarily mean she was im ...[text shortened]... the Church, Catholics regarded her as similarly impeccable and thus immaculately conceived.
Again, it is not a very compelling argument. God didn't have to preserve Mary from sin. The incarnation could have happened even if Mary were an atrocious sinner. So the incongruity does not necessarily mean that Mary was preserved from sin.
I'm not saying that such an incongruity necessarily had to be avoided. But I am interested in what you find compelling in your argument over and above this one I have presented from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Your argument makes sense but doesn't seem any stronger to me on the face of it. What am I missing?
Perhaps, as St. Thomas of Aquinas and St Bonaventure argued, Mary became immaculate in the womb. Hence, she would not have been immaculately conceived but she would have been free of original sin at the time of Jesus' birth.
Perhaps so. But by the same token, it was not necessary to do this one way or another to recognise Mary's superior role, since within this frame of reference, her role is manifest. So I don't find your argument more compelling so far, but since you are clearly better versed in this subject than I, I'm open to persuasion.
07 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kmy statement was in response to the assertion that Christ, did or did not a beginning and thus was or was not a created entity, not the immaculate conception, i though that was obvious given the previous posting, please forgive me for thinking that there may be some degree of continuity to this discussion.
[b]how i find this statement particularly rich from someone who took great pains to explain the 'inference', of the trinity via a semantic and philosophical approach, and i thought i was the 'King of Irony', i bow! the basis of your statement is once again a product of your own exegesis and has no scriptural basis, save a few hand picked verses on which hin ...[text shortened]... really bizarre, is your failure to appreciate this!
What have I failed to appreciate?[/b]
i have given my reasons as to why, sound and scripturally based, why the immaculate conception runs contrary to the word of God, there is NO scriptural reason to assume that Mary was conceived immaculately, if there is, then lets see it. As to your assertions that she is the women in revelation, i doubt very much whether you shall be able to substantiate that either, but hey, if one can justify a non scriptural dogma like the trinity, anything is possible.
Of great interest is the pre Christian pagan deities, of Mother and child, particularly Isis and her son Horus and many other archetypical representations of the 'great mother', goddess and how these may have a bearing on the development of Mary worship within Catholicism.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkFair enough.
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Again, it is not a very compelling argument. God didn't have to preserve Mary from sin. The incarnation could have happened even if Mary were an atrocious sinner. So the incongruity does not necessarily mean that Mary was preserved from sin.
I'm not saying that such an incongruity necessarily h ...[text shortened]... , but since you are clearly better versed in this subject than I, I'm open to persuasion.[/b]