[the_conscience]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Romanist theology make an argument that Immaculate Conception is a necessary precondition to Incarnation?

If that be the case then IC is a necessary premise for Romanists.

[Deo volente]

There’s no such thing as “Romanist theology”. There’s Catholic theology, is that what you meant?

[D-fendr]

but doesn’t [Catholic] theology

Irrelevant, you have a simple syllogism that your debating premises to. It could be about Jack or Harry being human and the same requirements apply.

[Mad Dawg]

The only such language that I am aware of (not that that's any guide) is that IC is "fitting." It would be fun to see the Latin, but I'd guess "decens" or "decorus."

But in any event, I don't think that's part of the 'definition' and we certainly affirmed to Incarnation for a long time before the IC was defined. So while SOME may say it's necessary, I wouldn't call that necessity de Fide.

I AM, however, talking through my hat. I'm not up on the conversation. ( I AM, however, down fo' the struggle. )

[D-fendr]

Here:

Jane gave birth to Jack
Jack is human
Mary gave birth to a human.

With your premise:

Jane gave birth to Jack
Jack is human
Mary was born by cesarean section
Mary gave to a human

Jane gave birth to Jack
Jack is human
Mary was not born by cesarean section
Mary gave to a human

---

The third premise does not affect the syllogism, is irrelevant and unnecessary.

[metmom]

Funny, I see a lot of side stepping, but no one is answering the question.

I can reword it for a simple *Yes* or *No* answer.

Is the Immaculate Conception a necessary precondition (or prerequisite) for the Incarnation?