 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Prodigal Daughter
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 202 |
| First Name: | Deborah/PD | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptized Catholic, received First Communion, left during Confirmation year. ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 11:56 am |
|
A friend left the following comment to a recent post on my husband's blog about the Immaculate conception.
"I think it would be helpful to explain what the implications of this Catholic doctrine are. I'm sure at least some Protestants would like to know why it's important to view Mary as sinless."
How would you respond?
____________________
"Man should tremble, the world should vibrate, all Heaven should be deeply moved when the Son of God appears on the altar in the hands of the priest."
St. Francis of Assisi
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 963 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 02:10 pm |
|
This was in the morning's reading in my Magnificat:
"The cloud covered the meeting tent, and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling." Exodus 40:34-35
I thought about how Mary, too, was not filled with the "glory" of God but with the "grace" of God. Full of grace. Moses was unclean, a sinner like the rest of us, and he could not enter. Sin could not enter. But Jesus could. The dwelling was full of grace and became filled with the Son.
I don't know... 'Just something that popped into my head as I was reading.
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 03:29 pm |
|
Prodigal Daughter wrote: A friend left the following comment to a recent post on my husband's blog about the Immaculate conception.
"I think it would be helpful to explain what the implications of this Catholic doctrine are. I'm sure at least some Protestants would like to know why it's important to view Mary as sinless."
How would you respond?
I'm not sure what "implications" are in this poster's mind.
The Sinlessness of Mary throughout her life was a universally held belief by Christians as far back as our records go. It was unchallenged by Catholics, Oriental Eastern Christians, Muslims, Orthodox, and Protestants until the Protestant revolution reached a point where the typical Protestant branch had to be against any beliefs held by Catholics. Only then did it become necessary for the Church to consider declaring it a formal dogma. There is no reason to require belief in something everyone believes!
The Church does not formally declare doctrine until it is challenged to the point that Catholics begin to endanger their faith by false beliefs. For example, to the best of my knowledge, the sinlessness of Jesus has never been formally declared. Nor is it likely to be unless and until there is a serious challenge. Nonetheless, it is a universally held doctrine of the Church, taught infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium.
As for "implications" it was necessary that the New Eve be as spotless as the Eve in the garden. It was necessary for her to be the perfect vessel to carry the sign of the New Covenant. It was necessary for the Mother of God to impart her humanity on her Son, the King of the Jews, and thus become the Queen of his Kingdom, which encompasses all of heaven and earth, and whatever else might be out there. For Jesus had to learn pure love, and Mary as his flesh and blood was his teacher as he "grew in wisdom and in strength" to be our Savior. And it was through her selfless example that he was able to selflessly ascend the cross and give his life for us as she gave her life to him.
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 05:52 pm |
|
Rick,
That is beautiful. I will have to make a copy of that! Thanks.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Prodigal Daughter
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 202 |
| First Name: | Deborah/PD | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptized Catholic, received First Communion, left during Confirmation year. ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 06:34 pm |
|
I'm not sure what "implications" are in this poster's mind.
Neither am I. Although I am afraid that he is alluding to the misconception that this will lead people to “Worship Mary” rather than venerate her.
The Sinlessness of Mary throughout her life was a universally held belief by Christians as far back as our records go. It was unchallenged by Catholics, Oriental Eastern Christians, Muslims, Orthodox, and Protestants until the Protestant revolution reached a point where the typical Protestant branch had to be against any beliefs held by Catholics. Only then did it become necessary for the Church to consider declaring it a formal dogma. There is no reason to require belief in something everyone believes!
The Church does not formally declare doctrine until it is challenged to the point that Catholics begin to endanger their faith by false beliefs. For example, to the best of my knowledge, the sinlessness of Jesus has never been formally declared. Nor is it likely to be unless and until there is a serious challenge. Nonetheless, it is a universally held doctrine of the Church, taught infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium.
As for "implications" it was necessary that the New Eve be as spotless as the Eve in the garden. It was necessary for her to be the perfect vessel to carry the sign of the New Covenant. It was necessary for the Mother of God to impart her humanity on her Son, the King of the Jews, and thus become the Queen of his Kingdom, which encompasses all of heaven and earth, and whatever else might be out there. For Jesus had to learn pure love, and Mary as his flesh and blood was his teacher as he "grew in wisdom and in strength" to be our Savior. And it was through her selfless example that he was able to selflessly ascend the cross and give his life for us as she gave her life to him
This is beautiful. Would you mind if I quote you on Russ' blog? Or if you would like to copy and paste this yourself, that would be great. I wanted to write something, but being new to Marian doctrine and devotion I have a hard time articulating my thoughts about her.
It's not that I think this ex-Catholic/reformed friend of ours will agree with what you say regarding the implications of the Immaculate Conception, but I like the way that you discussed history, the reason for Catholic declaration of dogma, as well as some "personal Interpretation" of why Mary “had to be sinless.”
____________________
"Man should tremble, the world should vibrate, all Heaven should be deeply moved when the Son of God appears on the altar in the hands of the priest."
St. Francis of Assisi
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 10:05 pm |
|
I’d be interested in finding out how Christ is the better for having a mother who is a sinner and how this makes for an enhanced Christianity.
David
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 09:15 am |
|
| God's peace. I suspect that part of the heretical thinking of the Reformation regarding Mary is that Jesus came to us through her rather than of her. When the subject of Mary comes up in my discussions with most Protestants, she is seen by them as a conduit through which Jesus sort of "flows" from heaven to us. In this view, it is not essential that Mary be sinless, because Jesus is not seen as taking anything substantial from her. As a result, his relationship with her is seen as both temporary and trivial. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 10:16 am |
|
Good insight, Br. Carlo. So Jesus is seen dropping down out of heaven, as it were, ready made, with Mary’s role in forming his humanity and providing him with a nurturing family as just an incidental and non-essential occurrence. Sort of like how the bible is seen dropping down out of heaven, as it were, ready made, with the Church’s role in enumerating the books and declaring them inspired as just an incidental and non-essential occurrence. (I realize that this is a caricature, but in its way it illustrates the logic.)
David
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 4th, 2007 10:03 pm |
|
| God's peace. I have a question about the best apologetic defense of the Immaculate Conception when the argument used is this: "Mary did not need to be sinless because Jesus had no earthly father, and Original Sin passes from Adam to us only through the male line." Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~ Last edited on Thu Jan 4th, 2007 10:04 pm by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 4th, 2007 11:02 pm |
|
Hello again, Br. Carlo.
How about, Where in the bible does this proposition occur?
Seriously, I have seen this “male line” argument several times, and I have never seen a reason given. It is always just assumed that everyone understands and accepts that the male line is the only one of importance.
One might argue that if Adam’s sin “counted” for original sin, whereas Eve’s was merely an “auxiliary” offense, this could be seen as a “male line” thing. You know, “Through one man sin entered the world….” But this isn’t really the way Catholic theology handles it, so it’s hard even to imagine what these people are thinking.
Again, the cultures of the middle east preferred the male line for genealogies, yet I’ve heard that DNA can be used to trace one’s ancestry only through the female line. So it seems to be a standoff.
Here’s another thought: That Mary “did not need to be sinless” is kind of a truism, because God can do anything he wants. It doesn’t need reasoning like “original sin passes only through the male line” to support it. There is no statement given in the bible that Mary “had to be” sinless; it is merely “fitting,” just as it was “fitting” that the Christ be a real human being and suffer for the forgiveness of our sins (cf. Hebrews 2:10–13).
David
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 278 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 5th, 2007 12:09 am |
|
Truly this "male line" argument is flawed for if only the male line counts then Jesus is not of David's line unless God The Father is a decendant of David.
(Now that I've said that someone will probably believe it)
If however Jesus' inheritance comes from his mother's line then her role in salvation history becomes magnified.
____________________
NB: 'DrDave' is a nickname from college not and indication of academic achievement.
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 5th, 2007 08:26 am |
|
| God's peace. Thanks for your response. By the way, when you say, "I’ve heard that DNA can be used to trace one’s ancestry only through the female line"--be careful. This isn't strictly true. You have DNA in the nuclei of your cells, where all the genetic information to make your body's thousands of proteins is stored. You inherit half of this from your mother, half from your father. This means that both lines leading to you can be traced. However, the "powerhouses" of your cells, where energy is transformed--little structures called mitochondria--also contain their own special DNA. This is inherited ONLY from your mother. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 5th, 2007 10:02 am |
|
Yes, the mitochondria part is what I had in mind. I’ve read some “layman” articles about how with this area of the DNA scientists can trace one’s ancestral traits back to prehistoric times and ultimately to a single common mother whom some have dubbed the “mitochondria Eve.”
To me, this kind of puts the kibosh on the “male line only” argument used by fundamentalists, highlighting instead the role of Eve as “mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). So if Mary is the new Eve, as we read in the Fathers of the Church, there remains no support for the minimalist view of Mary. But of course those who accept only the 66 book bible will pay no attention to this, just as they pay no attention to the historical origin of the bible.
After a mostly technical upbringing, I started a career in engineering, but at age 30 switched to a more “liberal arts” line of work because of my linguistic and religious bent. I tend not to get too deep into science these days because my mind is on other things. You as a scientist/educator would be more appreciative.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 09:29 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
