Posted on 07/31/2005 5:22:28 PM PDT by sionnsar
This was NOT what I was taught, and I grew up in a fairly conservative RCC parish.
The way I understand it is that Mary was human, born human with all the human frailities instilled in her as a descendent of Eve. YET, because of her love of God, and her purity of spirit and soul, she found favor with God and God asked her to become the Mother of the Word of God : Christ, God Incarnat, BOTH Man and God. That is all. It was HER free will to say yes or no.
To ascribe divinity to Mary is to say that she was 'pre-made' for the position, and God just went through the motions. I find that idea very offensive, and is one reason why I left the RCC.
Jesus' conception is called the Miraculous Conception because he was conceived without a human father. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Jesus received both Divinity and humanity by his Miraculous Conception.
By her Immaculate Conception, and her Fiat Mary becomes the highest human being that ever lived who in nature was human alone. Christ being both God and man is more than human: he is both human and divine. His mother is God's creature; he is God's son. This makes all the difference in the world.
This has been very enlightening to read. As I was the one whose quote is getting tossed about, perhaps I might step in and say a word or two?
I suppose there's no way to avoid a debate on this, and the best way is for each to exhibit what is meant and thus we could all see if there is a common way of phrasing the same thing.
Sadly, there is no Scriptural warrant for assuming Mary was not born to Anna and Joaquin in the usual way. The text of Luke, to me, says she is cleansed and restored at the moment of her acceptance of the Divine commission (that is when she becomes full of grace). That she is sinless when she conceives and bears Jesus is equally true for my theory as for the IC. So, really what we're discussing is not whether the BVM is Immaculate, but rather when she started being so. My version has the benefit of drawing on Scripture, which is why I hold it. And again, my parishioner clearly accepts the IC. He and I are at peace because I do not forbid his belief and he does not enforce mine.
I think that the more important point than comparisions with Eve is to demonstrate what essential doctrine is protected by the doctrine of the IC. That is, what is being confirmed as a belief because and only because of the IC. If there is such a doctrine, then the probability that the IC is true increases.
That would be the constructive addition to this part of the thread, IMHO.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
Perhaps that is what you would like to discuss, but it is not up for discussion. It is settled dogma.
I recognise your approach as typical of the 20th century Anglican Communion and continuum, but it is sadly the same sort of construct that gave mainstream Anglicanism female ordination and assorted fruits and nuts.
It is not at all that kind of doctrine and that comment is surely a put-down.
And, perhaps it is settled doctrine for you, given the Pope has declared it mandatory of Roman Catholics, but it is not in the least settled for anyone else.
Which would mean it is not settled.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
And that is assuredly not the Anglicanism of the great Caroline Divines my Catholic Grandfather had me read (Lancelot Andrewes & Co.) who would have chewed you up (and me too for that matter) in a New York minute.
Charity is in short supply here, so I will restrict myself to saying that what is celebrated in my church is what I read from the Missals and lectionaries. We have no IC service, so there is no mention of it liturgically. It is a private pious belief on the part of a parishioner. So far as the Church is concerned, the BVM is the Theotokos and that's that.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
One final note, on my part, about this:
In the American Missal, one finds 'The Conception of the BVM' on Dec 8th. It calls her conception 'spotless' and says that it came about through foreknowledge of the coming birth of the Son. The conception is not there called 'immaculate', which is all I was saying before.
In Dom Gregory Dix's superb 'Shape of the Liturgy' he discusses the IC as a feast, noting it was invented by Anglo-Saxons in the 11th century (i.e., just before the Norman Conquest), and was exported to the Continent. It was not readily received there and only slowly gained acceptance, at least as a commemoration of the purity of our Lady. It was accepted into the Roman Kalendar in 1477. Its subsequent history is better known.
It is sad that this has overwhelmed the rest of the discussion, and only came up because the reporter insisted on asking us about it and then highlighting it in the article.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
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.