Posted on 03/10/2005 8:32:51 AM PST by concernedAmerican1
Like the big majority of Catholic Hierarchy in this country the leaders and administrators at So Called Catholic Institutions DON'T REALLY BELIEVE the tenents of their religion and are no more than Social Workers
How about that. Not being catholic, I always thought "immaculate conception" referred to the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Dictionary.com just told me it means that Mary was born without sin.
If that's what it means, then I don't believe in the immaculate conception. Mary was in need of a savior like the rest of us. But for that matter, I don't believe in the concept of "original sin". We inherit a rebellious nature due to Adam. But the sin we are judged for is our own acts. That's why David could count on being reunited with his son.
In order to be human, Jesus would have had to have some genes. Those might as well come from Mary as anywhere else.
It was only necessary that he appear to be human; we have no autopsy.
Catholics believe Mary was born without sin, not that she was concieved without the need for a saviour. Since jesus always was, and God is outside of time, we believe that as a special grace, Mary was saved at conception through Jesus's sacrifice. This is what Catholics call the Immaculate Conception. It has always been a part of the beliefs of the Catholic Church (first written reference in the 2nd century AD, I think) but only in 1854(?) was it declared something that you could not disbelieve and still call yourself a Catholic.
The name of Our Lord should be capitalized, of course. Mea culpa.
The need for a Savior implies sin. Why would it have been necessary for Mary to be saved at conception as opposed to later? At some point obviously she trusted God and it was counted to her for righteousness, just like Abraham. Both were saved by Jesus's sacrifice because of their trust in God.
So as long as Mary was saved before she bore Jesus, why would it matter at conception as opposed to say age 16?
While we have no autopsy, we know he bled, we know he got tired, we know it was prophesized that he would be from the lineage of David. We know that extreme stress can cause the condition of sweating drops of blood as in the garden. We know he ate food.
And we know he ate food after the resurrection. Which means we will be eating food for eternity in our resurrection bodies.
There is no reason to believe Jesus was not fully human, indwelt by the spirit of God.
Without the Grace of our Lord there was no way she could hope to avoid sin throughout her childhood. Childhood is where many of the patterns of our life are set, and Mary did not have her free will taken from her. It would not have prepared her for the immense task that was to be set before her. God, being outside of time, knew Mary trusted in him, and as a special blessing allowed her to be saved in the womb, so each day she could grow in holiness in preparation for the choice she would one day make.
What better gift to give to your mother than the saving love of Jesus Christ? And if you had it within your power to give her that gift at the moment of her conception, would you have denied it her?
Would I have denied it to anyone? For Mary to be saved at conception implies she trusted the Lord at conception. I believe children in the womb have congnitive abilities. For example John the Baptist leaped in the womb at the approach of Jesus. But at conception? It might not be impossible, but I don't see it as scriptural or necessary.
While certainly I agree that Mary needed to grow in holiness in order to raise the Lord Jesus, I do not see the need for an immaculate conception.
Look at the man born blind. The pharisees asked our Lord whether it was through the fault of his parent's or the fault of the man. Jesus answered that it was neither, but rather to demonstrate the glory of God. Likewise it was not any intrinsic merit of Mary's which gained her this blessing (and she knew it- look to the Magnificat), but only to demonstrate the glory of God, to give the King of Kings the most perfect mother possible. A pretty tall order considering his policy of not messing with free will :)
It was a magnificent, mysterious thing, but fundamentally no different than the advantages and disadvantages (yes, I imagine there were worldly disadvantages to living without sin) than those God gives every child conceived- and all for the same purpose: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
I'm a Baptist, so tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but, If Mary was born without sin, wouldn't that make 'HER' mother the pure one?
No, her mother was not "pure." God acted in the moment of her conception to free her from the stain of sin. To deny God could do/did this is to deny God's omnipotence.
Would not Adam have also done these very same things?
I'm not denying Gods omnipotence, I just thought about that all my life. No one has ever explained it to me. Thanks.
I'm Baptist as well, and I'm confused too. I don't understand the necessity for it and I don't understand where the doctrine came from.
Academic freedom also means the freedom to NOT display something just because someone created it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.