I Love that Woman! My Unworthy Reflections on The Immaculate Conception

Fighting Irish Thomas ^ | 12-8-06 | Tom O'Toole

[mlizzy]

...a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful that the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, was, by a unique grace and privilege of Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. –Ineffabilis Deus

Today's feast day is more than Pope Pius IX's 1854 infallible proclamation, as important as that Dogma was and is. Today's feast day, which issues not only from the Papal Bull Ineffabilis Deus but its echo at the Grotto in Lourdes four years later, demonstrates that the Virgin Mary, with all her wonderful titles, wants to be known by that name. And the reason is not so much that she was conceived without sin, but that through her humility before God she continued without sin until the day she was assumed into heaven. It is for this reason her prayer is so powerful, her intercession so necessary.

While salvation is assured to anyone who lives a Christ-like life and is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to reach sainthood two further questions must be asked. First, can "The Word" become "Flesh" without the Eucharist? And second, can we truly know (and then, follow) Christ if we don't love Mary?

As a Catholic, who has come to know Jesus "in the Breaking of the Bread" (Luke 24:35), I believe one's knowledge (and thus belief) in Christ can never be fully realized without the Eucharist, and without it one instead develops a sort of two-dimensional faith that allows errors to infiltrate the spaces in the soul that grace has not filled in. Similarly, one cannot have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ without Mary. A person can attempt to be friends with another without sharing in the lives of this person's close friends, but that relationship is always doomed to be flawed or incomplete. Plus, Christ chose Mary as THE friend of any Christian, when He gave her to John as His mother (John 19:26-27). And the reason Mary was named first among a Christian's friends is because she finished the Salvation Race first in humility. Being the first and only person who followed God completely, she is the only person God calls "Full of Grace" (Luke 1:28).

Of course, a charismatic Christian will correctly claim one can appeal for God's grace without the sacraments and go directly through the Holy Spirit. But without perfect humility, these appeals are always open to deception (i.e. the devil), which is obvious to anyone who observes two or more Christian leaders claiming the Holy Spirit's inspiration on a subject when their doctrines flatly contradict each other. And, of course, this need heads us directly back to Our Lady. One needs perfect humility to correctly invoke the Holy Spirit, and that is available only through the prayers of the perfectly humble one, Mary The Immaculate Conception. And Mary never fails to lead those who seek her Intercession back to her Son, especially in His humblest form, under the Appearance of Bread and Wine.

Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

[topcat54]

Your earlier comment did.

That was not the context of your question. I'll draw you a map.

The content of your question was:

Uh, if you can’t tell me who EXACTLY said it, then I don’t see why I should take the quote at face value to begin with.

This is the way it was reported by the Jansenist Launoy as quoted in various sources.

Your claim, “ if you can’t tell me who EXACTLY said it,” was with reference to the citation of “7. John XXII (or Benedict XII)”. See here. Launoy was the one who expressed some ambiguity on John vs. Benedict. He had nothing to say about the IC/Pelagianism as far as I know.

Now do you get it?

Nevertheless, I stand by the statement that the IC is basically a Pelagian doctrine, having to do with the sinlessness of person born of normal generation. Something not taught in the Bible or by the (true catholic) church fathers.

[topcat54]

What’s your evidence that the Immaculate Conception was “post-medieval”? If Pope Sixtus IV was defending it in the 15th century, then it is clearly not “post-medieval”.

The 15th century is on the cusp. Given the lack of support for the doctrine during the bulk of the medieval period, I stand by my claim.

It is a doctrine not taught by the apostles nor by their (truly) catholic successors.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“That was not the context of your question. I’ll draw you a map.”

It was the context of your previous statement. You said the doctrine was Pelagian did you not? Were you not using a statement by a Jansenist against it? You can twist all you like but those are the plain facts.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The 15th century is on the cusp.”

Cusp? So “post-medieval” is now “cusp”? So, would early 15th century now become “pre-cusp”?

“Given the lack of support for the doctrine during the bulk of the medieval period, I stand by my claim.”

Your claim has already been proven false. Sixtus IV never reigned in the “post-medieval” period.

“It is a doctrine not taught by the apostles nor by their (truly) catholic successors.”

So you claim. All you can really claim is that you have found no record of their teaching of it and that you deny that those who believe in the doctrine are “catholic”. Coming from a man who can’t tell when “post-medieval” times were that means little to say the least.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.