immaculate conception (richard)

[_JAK]

“Do you not see though that according to R.C. doctrine defined, Mary is the 'Immaculate conception'?”

What is the definition of each of the two terms used here? I asked that previously.

What does “conception” mean in the context of this statement?

What does “Immaculate” mean in the context of this statement?

In any case, I recognize your point and yield to the construction.

I can understand a disagreement with the phrase, "Mary is/was the Immaculate Conception". I do have some difficulty getting my mind wrapped around it. There is an official R.C. doctrine regarding a declaration Mary was conceived free of original sin. Jesus as well, would have been according to R.C. belief conceived free of original sin. The church probably needed to make official a statement regarding Mary, not Jesus because it is not obvious nor stated in the Bible that she was born free of original sin. I doubt the R.C. Church would refer to Mary as the immaculate conception. Mary was given an immaculate conception according to R.C. doctrine by God, it was Mary’s immaculate conception, the conception of Mary was immaculate… but Mary is/was the immaculate conception doesn’t sound quite right.

As far as your questions…"immaculate" in the context of the statement means free of original sin as per doctrine on original sin according to the R.C. church.

“Conception” .. I’m not certain exactly what is meant. I think of it as “conceived” by whatever means is necessary to conceive . For her, according to R.C. beliefs, I believe she was conceived through natural means by her parents.

JAK:

Your observations/comments are right here in my view. There would have been no need for any “Immaculate Conception” of any definition were it not for the previous doctrine of original sin. It was deemed necessary (RCC doctrine) to overwrite “original sin” for Mary to declare her completely free of that curse which was on all mankind in order to make her “fit” to be the Mother of God.

With Saint Augustine came the position that “Augustine's belief that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell, he concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell…”
(same source) Hence, Roman Catholics attempt to baptize infants as soon as possible after birth.

(Same source) “Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants". The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: ‘As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism…” (If you wish, you can read the full details of “original sin” which I linked from Wikipedia.

New Advent states:
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

Accepting this as current RCC dogma, it took the RCC a very long time to “pronounce and define…” the “Blessed Virgin Mary” officially (1854).

“Soul” is assumed along with all the other assumptions in the statement (same source):
“The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.”

At best, we have muddy meaning in language. RC dogma also declares Jesus free from original sin, yet he is baptized by John the Baptist. Why is that? There is a theological dance here, and following the Protestant Reformation, the mass printing of the Bible, and the increased number of people reading the Bible, we have an increase in interpretations about various doctrines. Many Protestants, including close cousins in the Episcopal Church do not accept RC dogma about original sin.

If you like, you can read through the lengthy on-line positions of the Anglican Church. It differs with the RCC in a number of doctrines.

History of dogma on Immaculate Conception

We can see in Protestantism that the dogma of “Immaculate Conception” is not shared by non-Roman Catholics.

“The doctrine is generally not shared by either Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Church, or by the various Protestant communities.”

Eastern Orthodox Churches have yet their own doctrine/dogma on Mary.

Even with definitions, there remain questions as you confirmed in your post. It’s a matter of dogma and doctrinal assertion, not a matter of verifiable fact from genuine probe of evidence. It’s also a matter of historical time periods when various doctrines were established and regarded as official for the RCC. Then we have the various schisms, the most recent of which (in large size) is the Protestant Reformation (1517).

Pope Pius IX who made official dogma (Immaculate Conception) for the RCC did so in 1854. That’s a very long time from claimed events for which the official dogma is being constructed. It’s also after the invention of the printing press. The significance of this is that reproduction of dogma is now possible on a large scale. Prior to the printing press, only copied scripts existed, and those were all copied by hand and under the supervision of the hierarchy of those who held power (political and religious).

Hence, we have in dogma declaration of truth, or, as I have often observed truth by assertion.

In The Fall of Man, under number 2 we have Interpretations.

They do not agree. But “original sin” is doctrine inherently linked to “the fall of man,” a doctrine/dogma.

We have layers of interpretations surrounding various dogmas/doctrines. While definitions are important, as we peer back through history, time and loss of data make looking narrowly and searchingly difficult. Doctrinal shifts beyond a point in history are difficult to discover with clarity. And, very often claims are all we have to view.

JAK

[_JAK]

JAK,

Give me the FULL citation by Bishop Sheen about the immaculate conception which refers to Luke 1:34-38 and I will respond to it.

Am still waiting for this citation from JAK.

Richard,

While I have given direct quotations in other posts, I cannot send you my volume of the encyclopedia.

I will quote from the World Book Encyclopedia which I have. That’s the best I can do.

“Immaculate Conception means that the Virgin Mary, in order to be pure enough to become the mother of Christ, was conceived free from the burden of original sin. Her soul was created in the purest holiness and innocence.

“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. But even before this, the doctrine had been understood and accepted by Roman Catholic authorities.

“Mary had two human parents. The Virgin Birth implies a miracle, namely that Christ was ‘conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary.’ She had asked the angel Gabriel how she, a virgin, should become the mother of the promised Messiah, and she was told this would be by the power of God (Luke 1:34-38). The Roman Catholic Church has always upheld these two articles of faith.”

Authored by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen (Date of encyclopedia 1985)

The 2007 edition has a different author and is language is phrased somewhat differently.

And I might add the World Book publishes articles on various religious organizations with the approval of those organizations which allow the article for the encyclopedia.

Also, the 2007 edition of this same World Book Encyclopedia now publishes its article on “Immaculate Conception” with a different author, J. H. Charlesworth (more recent).

The language is somewhat altered from that in 1985 edition. While Bishop Fulton J. Sheen is detailed in Wikipedia, I do not find Charlesworth in that same source. However, a search for the name reveals him and work with which he has been associated.

JAK

[_marg]

JAK, I'm sort of lost at this point what the issue is here. I believe in your previous posts to others, you did not accept that "immaculate conception" when referring to R.C.C. doctrine referred in any way to Mary but rather only to Jesus. I believe that is Richard and Jersey Girl's complaint/objection. They I believe when referring to "immaculate conception" R.C.C. doctrine say it applies only to Mary, not to Jesus. I think they are talking specifically about official R.C.C. doctrine, which is referred to now a days as "immaculate conception".

[_JAK]

JAK, I'm sort of lost at this point what the issue is here. I believe in your previous posts to others, you did not accept that "immaculate conception" when referring to R.C.C. doctrine referred in any way to Mary but rather only to Jesus. I believe that is Richard and Jersey Girl's complaint/objection. They I believe when referring to "immaculate conception" R.C.C. doctrine say it applies only to Mary, not to Jesus. I think they are talking specifically about official R.C.C. doctrine, which is referred to now a days as "immaculate conception".

marg,

In one of my comments to you, I mentioned that: “I recognize your point and yield to the construction.” The doctrine of “original sin” preceded the 1854 official proclamation of Pope Pius IX. Were it not for the previous doctrine of “original sin,” claims about Mary and about Jesus as well would not have been required. To make Mary and Jesus free of “original sin” required two miracles (according to Bishop Sheen). However, the phrase “two miracles” was dropped in the 2007 edition of the same encyclopedia. And that article (like the one by Bishop Sheen) was approved by the RCC. So the World Book is not producing research here. Rather it is printing what the RCC approved for the entry “Immaculate Conception.”

As you pointed out, “conception” (the term) lacks clarity. Just what is it? It’s a concept that Mary was freed by God from “original sin.” But the RCC regards all about her coming into the world as a human being was natural. Hence, it was by decree of the RCC and made officially in 1854 that Mary was, from her conception as a person, free from “original sin.” It’s regarded as miracle by the RCC. It is not so regarded by many if not most Protestant groups. Therefore, Mary is regarded differently by the RCC than by many denominations (organizations) in the Protestant tradition.

Even the cousin (The Episcopal Church - Protestant) does not adhere to the RCC doctrine on “original sin” as websites I linked stated. Many Protestant church groups do not accept that all humans are born in sin – original sin. That is their justification for a doctrine of the chronological age of accountability. That is, a teenager or adult can choose to accept the doctrines of a particular Protestant group and then be baptized by choice. Infant baptism in the RCC is a standard practice. It’s based on the notion of “original sin” and that without it, an infant who dies may spend eternity in hell. The infant is born sinful according to the doctrine of “original sin.”

But, there are numerous Protestant organizations which also practice infant baptism.

You might find Original Sin, an Overview of interest.

You know that all of this stuff is about claim and counter-claim. In the above article, is this “conclusion:”

“The obvious answer is we were mortal to begin with and the Adam story is not literal history. Even the Bible proves the concept false and the invention of mainly Paul. The individual is responsible only for their conduct, not that of others and certainly not Adam according to the Old Testament. Christians can't even agree on the subject and their interpretation (in particular Augustine) flatly contradicts the Old Testament. There was no Devil as such in Judaism prior to the Captivity and Satan later became identified with the Zoroastrian Devil and the Serpent in the Garden. Satan was under Judaism a servant of God. The whole idea is just nonsense and has no Biblical support outside Paul, a man that never even met Jesus.”

Given this interpretation, any doctrines about “Immaculate Conception” are irrelevant.

This article was not authored by the RCC or any representative thereof. You can scroll down and read all the article if you like.

Religion & Ethics discusses the doctrine of “original sin.” Scroll down in the article to read. The update of this link was in 2005 (for whatever that may be worth). There are multiple links on this page, should you wish to pursue doctrines and claims by various groups.

JAK

[_Imapiratewasher]

There are many different idea's about what ws meant by immaculate conception. Joseph couldn't have been the biological father because it said he had returned to Mary and she was pregnant. Mary must have been the mother because the midwife checked her virginity and was burned. She possibly was just a carrier, that would make more sense. Or perhaps Jesus was a bastard and when the compilation of the Bible came about people did not want to admit that he was and so made it an immaculate conception from God. Perhaps the words immaculate conception mean something totally different.

Some people believe it was immaculate because Jesus was born without sin. I personally believe everyone is born without sin. My mum believe it was because 12 women were in a dark cave and one of them had recieved sex from a being and it was immaculate because no one knew who the being was or who was concieved with, again this is all symbolic.

[_JAK]

There are many different idea's about what ws meant by immaculate conception. Joseph couldn't have been the biological father because it said he had returned to Mary and she was pregnant. Mary must have been the mother because the midwife checked her virginity and was burned. She possibly was just a carrier, that would make more sense. Or perhaps Jesus was a bastard and when the compilation of the Bible came about people did not want to admit that he was and so made it an immaculate conception from God. Perhaps the words immaculate conception mean something totally different.

Some people believe it was immaculate because Jesus was born without sin. I personally believe everyone is born without sin. My mum believe it was because 12 women were in a dark cave and one of them had recieved sex from a being and it was immaculate because no one knew who the being was or who was concieved with, again this is all symbolic.

It is generally a Protestant doctrine that people are born without sin. But sin in any configuration is a doctrine of religious pattern.

More liberal Christian groups today either don’t care about the biology of Joseph or find it unimportant. However, if one wants to be a doctrine maker, the Luke 1:34-38 can be used to claim that the “Holy Ghost” is responsible for the person of Jesus.

If you read my previous links to “Immaculate Conception,” you know both what the Roman Catholic (RC) doctrine is and what the deviations on that doctrine are following Pope IX and his 1854 declaration on this RC doctrine.

Of course the very scripts themselves are speculation. No one then knew anything about just how and why a pregnancy occurred. Biblical scripts are also contradictory as some trace Jesus though Joseph and others claim that the “Holy Ghost” is responsible for Jesus the Christ. (Pay your money and take your choice, or don’t pay and make no choice.)

Miraculous Birth is “quite common” in “world fokelore” as Wikipedia discusses the notion(s).

As for what one wishes to believe, one can believe anything one likes. As “Immaculate Conception” is characterized in Roman Catholic New Advent website, you have a doctrine.

You can read a somewhat different characterization in Wikipedia as it is stated. If you scroll down you have an index of references with particular detail.

Claims are made absent anything that resembles modern biology or modern medical science on the topic.

JAK

[_Imapiratewasher]

But there is a Light [that] dwells hidden in Silence and it was first to [come] forth. Whereas she (the Mother) alone exists as Silence, I alone am the Word, ineffable, unpolluted, immeasurable, inconcievable. It (the word) is a hidden Light, bearing a Fruit of Life, pouring forth a Living Water from the invisible, unpolluted, immeasurable Spring, that is, the unreproducable Voice of the glory of the Mother, the glory of the offspring of God; a male Virgin by virtue of a hidden Intellect, that is, the Silence is hidden from the All, being unreproducible, an imeasurable light, the source of the All, the Root of an entire Aeon. It is the Foundation that supports every movement of the Aeons that belong to the mighty Glory. It is the Foundation of every foundation. It is the Breath of the Powers. It is the Eye of the Three Permanences, which exist as Voice by virtue of Thought. And it is Word by virtue of Speach; it was sent to illumine those who dwell in the [darkness]

....

As for me, I put on Jesus. I bore him from the cursed wood, and established him in the dwelling places of his Father. And those who watch over their dwelling places did not recognise me. For I, I am unrestrainable together with my Seed, and my Seed, which is mine, I ahall [place] into the Holy Light within an incomprehensible Silence. Amen.

--Lost Scriptures, Bart D. Ehrman. "The First Thought in Three Forms".

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK,

Give me the FULL citation by Bishop Sheen about the immaculate conception which refers to Luke 1:34-38 and I will respond to it.

Am still waiting for this citation from JAK.

Richard,

While I have given direct quotations in other posts, I cannot send you my volume of the encyclopedia.

I will quote from the World Book Encyclopedia which I have. That’s the best I can do.

“Immaculate Conception means that the Virgin Mary, in order to be pure enough to become the mother of Christ, was conceived free from the burden of original sin. Her soul was created in the purest holiness and innocence.

“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. But even before this, the doctrine had been understood and accepted by Roman Catholic authorities.

“Mary had two human parents. The Virgin Birth implies a miracle, namely that Christ was ‘conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary.’ She had asked the angel Gabriel how she, a virgin, should become the mother of the promised Messiah, and she was told this would be by the power of God (Luke 1:34-38). The Roman Catholic Church has always upheld these two articles of faith.”

Authored by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen (Date of encyclopedia 1985)

The 2007 edition has a different author and is language is phrased somewhat differently.

And I might add the World Book publishes articles on various religious organizations with the approval of those organizations which allow the article for the encyclopedia.

Also, the 2007 edition of this same World Book Encyclopedia now publishes its article on “Immaculate Conception” with a different author, J. H. Charlesworth (more recent).

The language is somewhat altered from that in 1985 edition. While Bishop Fulton J. Sheen is detailed in Wikipedia, I do not find Charlesworth in that same source. However, a search for the name reveals him and work with which he has been associated.

JAK

Your quotes here about the virgin birth and the immaculate conception are accurate. However, they are differ greatly from your first assertion about the immaculate conception.

[_JAK]

Richard, my apologies for lack of clarity previously

JAK