peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/31/85)
Please reply in mail, I don't get this group. From a Trivial Pursuit card: (H) Whose birth does the doctrine of Immaculate Conception concern? (A) The Virgin Mary's I said "Jesus Christ". Now, am I wrong? If so, please tell me why. If I'm not wrong how could these people get away with an error like that without being flamed to death?
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/02/85)
> (H) Whose birth does the doctrine of Immaculate Conception concern? > (A) The Virgin Mary's This has been covered before, but Trivial Pursuit is correct. According to Catholic dogma, Mary was necessarily conceived without inheriting Original Sin because of her role as the Mother of God. "Immaculate Conception" != "Virgin Birth". -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
bobhic@aluxe.UUCP (ADOLT) (09/03/85)
> > (H) Whose birth does the doctrine of Immaculate Conception concern? > > (A) The Virgin Mary's > > This has been covered before, but Trivial Pursuit is correct. According > to Catholic dogma, Mary was necessarily conceived without inheriting > Original Sin because of her role as the Mother of God. > "Immaculate Conception" != "Virgin Birth". > -- > /Steve Dyer > {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer > sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA ---------------------------------------------------------- I have before me a pamplet called "Teasers and Tests" from Readers Digest, printed in 1967. It has the same question and the answer with an explaination. "To whose conception does the "Immaculate Conception" refer?" "Immaculate Conception" doctrine refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus. Made an article of faith by Pope Pius IX in 1854, it holds that "the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first instant of her conception, was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God...preserved from all stain of Original Sin." ------------------------------------------- Hope this helps to clear things up for you. --------------------- Bob Adolt - Bell Labs - Allentown,PA bobhic!aluxe
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (09/04/85)
In article <811@aluxe.UUCP> bobhic@aluxe.UUCP (ADOLT) writes: >"Immaculate Conception" doctrine refers to the conception of >Mary, not Jesus. Made an article of faith by Pope Pius IX >in 1854, it holds that "the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the >first instant of her conception, was, by a most singular >grace and privilege of Almighty God...preserved from all >stain of Original Sin." How did the Pope come to this conclusion? Also, it seems to be implied that Mary didn't commit any sins, otherwise she would be stained with sin anyway. (yes? no?) If so, it then seems that she could have provided the sacrifice of someone who was without sin just as well as Jesus could. (Or was the sacrificial person required to be male?) The way I heard it, (no this isn't net.jokes! :-) ) was that the "stain of Original Sin" was transmitted through the father, thus Jesus could be free of sin 'merely' by means of the virgin birth. Mary was not required to be without sin. Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/06/85)
In article <hammer.1480> seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >In article <811@aluxe.UUCP> bobhic@aluxe.UUCP (ADOLT) writes: > >>"Immaculate Conception" doctrine refers to the conception of >>Mary, not Jesus. Made an article of faith by Pope Pius IX >>in 1854, it holds that "the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the >>first instant of her conception, was, by a most singular >>grace and privilege of Almighty God...preserved from all >>stain of Original Sin." > >How did the Pope come to this conclusion? Also, it seems to >be implied that Mary didn't commit any sins, otherwise she >would be stained with sin anyway. (yes? no?) If so, it then >seems that she could have provided the sacrifice of someone >who was without sin just as well as Jesus could. (Or was >the sacrificial person required to be male?) > >The way I heard it, (no this isn't net.jokes! :-) ) was that >the "stain of Original Sin" was transmitted through the father, >thus Jesus could be free of sin 'merely' by means of the >virgin birth. Mary was not required to be without sin. > >Snoopy >tektronix!hammer!seifert The way a Pope makes a decision regarding the official doctrine of the RC church is not well known. Since the RC church relies more on tradition than the Bible, the Pope can make up just about anything and pass it off as church teaching. The quaint notion of the "Immaculate Conception" is an example of just such a teaching. Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that Mary was without sin. On the contrary, she cries out to God as one in need of a Savior (c.f. Luke 1:46 ff). The doctrine of the "Assumption" of Mary is another in point. The RC church teaches that after Mary died her body was taken to heaven before seeing corruption and reunited with her soul. A cute idea, but hardly biblical. The RC church has used these and other heretical doctines about Mary to justify its quasi-deification of her. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl "That's the news from Lake Wobegon ... "
hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (09/07/85)
> .. Since the RC church relies more on tradition > than the Bible, the Pope can make up just about anything and pass it off as > church teaching. The quaint notion of the "Immaculate Conception" is an > example of just such a teaching. Nowhere in the Bible is there any > indication ... > > The RC church has used these and other heretical doctines about Mary to > justify its quasi-deification of her. I hate to defend the Pope, since I basically agree that these doctrines are ill-conceived. However I would like to reassure people that not all Protestants are quite as rabid as this response might suggest. It is true that there is no formal way to prevent a Pope from creating a crazy doctrine out of whole cloth and declaring it infallible. However none have yet done so, and the whole theory behind Papal infallability is that they will not. Let me be clear: the doctrines may have been crazy. What I am objecting to is the suggestion that the Pope creates them out of thin air and imposes them on his Church. Even a Protestant may have enough faith in the Spirit's presence in Rome to believe that they won't get a Pope who is that arrogant. In fact, varying degrees of veneration of Mary are apparent in documents going back to the earliest centuries of the Church. As I understand it, when the Pope made the Immaculate Conception an official dogma, there had been a groundswell of demand for it throughout his church. Some of us may think that ill-informed popular piety won out over carefully considered theology, but if so, that will not be the first time this has happened, nor are all occurences limited to the Roman church. I would like to reserve the word "heresy" for things that strike at the heart of Christian doctine. I don't think it is deserved in this case. There is nothing heretical about the claim that some human being was sinless. Plenty of Protestants (e.g. John Wesley) have believed that it is possible for a Christian (other than Christ himself) to be perfect. I think the idea that sin is passed on via the sexual act (and this seems to be underlying the Immaculate Conception, as well as various other modern Roman ideas) is a dangerous one. It fits in all too well with the ideas of women as second-class citizens and sex as allowable only for procreation (ideas which do border on the heretical). But it seems to be going a bit far to claim that the Immaculate Conception in itself is heretical. Christians would do well not to go around calling each other heretics without the most careful deliberation.
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/08/85)
> I think > the idea that sin is passed on via the sexual act (and this seems to > be underlying the Immaculate Conception, as well as various other > modern Roman ideas) is a dangerous one. It fits in all too well with > the ideas of women as second-class citizens and sex as allowable only > for procreation (ideas which do border on the heretical). Excuse me, Chuck, but this "modern Roman" notion of "concupiscence" in the sexual act as being responsible for Original Sin in each person dates from Augustine, and in fact was explicitly rejected by the Council of Trent (though it still had currency among some Protestant Reformers.) It is absurd, if not downright insulting, to hear Protestants lambast the RC Church with creaky, contradictory allegations which have nothing whatsoever to do with modern practice. The dogma of Immaculate Conception lies more firmly on a particular notion of Original Sin as a lack of "sanctifying grace", which in Mary's role as the Mother of God, God would presumably not withhold. As you mention, this notion had appeared in the Church as early in the 15th century as a "pious doctrine", though not much attention was given it until early in the 19th century. I suppose one may react with dismay to the promulgation of the two Marian dogmas pronounced "excathedra", but we must realize that the mid-19th century and even the 1950's are, theologically and ecclesiastically, about as far away from the modern Church as, say, Augustine. Anyway, why are we arguing about Immaculate Conception when Mary's bodily assumption into heaven (excathedra pronouncement 2) makes even Roman Catholics embarassed? :-) -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/08/85)
> It is true that there is no formal way to prevent a Pope > from creating a crazy doctrine out of whole cloth and declaring it > infallible. However none have yet done so, and the whole theory > behind Papal infallability is that they will not. Of course, the ongoing assumption is that the Spirit working through the Church would prevent anything like this from happening, but I have heard theological speculation which would indicate that the Pope can make an infallible pronouncement on faith and morals only insofaras the Church receives it positively. Which is to say that the pronouncement would be a confirmation of what is presently accepted by the faithful and is consonant with existing Church teaching. I am sure that if a Pope ever went bonkers, this speculation would become quickly become precedent. I should also mention (Chuck Hedrick knows this, but Tom Albrecht obviously does not) that there have only been two "infallible" pronouncements since the doctrine of Papal infallibility was formally codified, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Ordinary preaching by the Pope, even in the form of an encyclical, is not considered an infallible pronouncement. -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (09/14/85)
In article <1480@hammer.UUCP> seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >In article <811@aluxe.UUCP> bobhic@aluxe.UUCP (ADOLT) writes: > >>"Immaculate Conception" doctrine refers to the conception of >>Mary, not Jesus. Made an article of faith by Pope Pius IX >>in 1854, it holds that "the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the >>first instant of her conception, was, by a most singular >>grace and privilege of Almighty God...preserved from all >>stain of Original Sin." > >How did the Pope come to this conclusion? Also, it seems to >be implied that Mary didn't commit any sins, otherwise she >would be stained with sin anyway. (yes? no?) If so, it then >seems that she could have provided the sacrifice of someone >who was without sin just as well as Jesus could. (Or was >the sacrificial person required to be male?) Pius IX came to this conclusion because by this time it was firmly established in the tradition of the Catholic church. The idea was that one could inherit "stain" from either parent, and therefore it was necessary to keep Mary, and in some versions, her entire female progeniture, free of sin so she could not pass this on. The sacrifice of one human without sin would presumably save one human WITH sin. However, Jesus was not merely human. In any case Mary was not chosen for the task, obviously. Incidentally, I find the doctrine of Immaculate Conception to be utterly unnecessary. Mary, through her entire life, was a practicing, sacrificing Jew, and her observance of the Covenant and concommitant trust in the efficacy of the sacrifices held at the Temple would have been sufficient to keep her ritually pure for the necessary period. Part of the problem comes in the connection between "sin" and the concept of ritual purity. Apparently it was sufficient in the eyes of G-d that one be ritually pure, to "handle" Holy things. (Please correct me if I am mistaken in the following analysis.) One could become ritually unclean by breaking the Law, or by touching the wrong things. As far as I can tell, Mary did neither thing, until she gave birth; I seem to recall that there is a brief interval of ritual impurity after giving birth because of the blood involved. In any case, it is not a sin to give birth or to be born, so the ritual impurity would be alleviated in the usual fashion. Concluding, any "burden of sin" Mary carried would have been adequately alleviated through the standard methods; if it were necessary that she remain "sinless" it would have been during the time she was pregnant; any assertion that Mary was kept sinless from conception is not necessary. It would have been just as easy, or easier, to keep any stain from Jesus during His pre-infancy. It is unfounded speculation to claim any such thing for Mary; there is nothing in scripture to indicate any such opinion on the part of the apostles, and the rise of the cult of the Virgin is too easily tied to the simultaneous increasing prevalence of the notion of Immaculate Conception. Hutch
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/17/85)
"Immaculate Conception" is relative to the concept of "Original Sin",
alluded to by Paul, and fully developed by Augustine, with which each
person is born, and which is not "wiped clean" by observing ritual purity,
or for that matter by Justification.
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPAsusan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (09/20/85)
> > Incidentally, I find the doctrine of Immaculate Conception to be > utterly unnecessary. Mary, through her entire life, was a practicing, > sacrificing Jew, and her observance of the Covenant and concommitant > trust in the efficacy of the sacrifices held at the Temple would have > been sufficient to keep her ritually pure for the necessary period. > What evidence is there for the above? I really don't think that ritual purity was the issue addressed by the Immaculate Conception anyway. I would be interested in hearing more about that concept if it is truely the origin of the doctrine. > Part of the problem comes in the connection between "sin" and the > concept of ritual purity. Apparently it was sufficient in the eyes > of G-d that one be ritually pure, to "handle" Holy things. > (Please correct me if I am mistaken in the following analysis.) > One could become ritually unclean by breaking the Law, or by touching > the wrong things. As far as I can tell, Mary did neither thing, until > she gave birth; I seem to recall that there is a brief interval of ritual > impurity after giving birth because of the blood involved. In any > case, it is not a sin to give birth or to be born, so the ritual impurity > would be alleviated in the usual fashion. > She became unclean every time she had a period both before and after the birth of her kid. I doubt if she stopped handling him because of that. > Hutch Susan Finkelman {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (10/01/85)
In article <339@vaxwaller.UUCP> susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: >> >> Incidentally, I find the doctrine of Immaculate Conception to be >> utterly unnecessary. Mary, through her entire life, was a practicing, >> sacrificing Jew, and her observance of the Covenant and concommitant >> trust in the efficacy of the sacrifices held at the Temple would have >> been sufficient to keep her ritually pure for the necessary period. >> >What evidence is there for the above? I really don't think that ritual >purity was the issue addressed by the Immaculate Conception anyway. >I would be interested in hearing more about that concept if it is truely >the origin of the doctrine. The dispute here comes to a question of whether ritual impurity equates with sinfulness. I am not at all sure. There are some indications that it does in that things identified as sins often resulted in ritual impurity. I personally think of it in terms of the Christian doctrine of the sacrifice of Jesus; the fact is that Paul of Tarsus, among other (Christian) trained students of Jewish doctrine of that time, taught that the sacrifice of Jesus made the sacrifices of animals unnecessary for the cleansing of sin. If we postulate that the "weight of inherited sin" is kept from passing to Jesus from Mary, then the only question is that she is "touching" a Holy Thing. If that is the case, then only her maintaining ritual purity is really required, and that more for her than for her child. >> Part of the problem comes in the connection between "sin" and the >> concept of ritual purity. Apparently it was sufficient in the eyes >> of G-d that one be ritually pure, to "handle" Holy things. >> (Please correct me if I am mistaken in the following analysis.) >> One could become ritually unclean by breaking the Law, or by touching >> the wrong things. As far as I can tell, Mary did neither thing, until >> she gave birth; I seem to recall that there is a brief interval of ritual >> impurity after giving birth because of the blood involved. In any >> case, it is not a sin to give birth or to be born, so the ritual impurity >> would be alleviated in the usual fashion. >> >She became unclean every time she had a period both before and after the >birth of her kid. I doubt if she stopped handling him because of that. Actually, it is entirely possible that she DID, since touching an unclean thing (at least in some instances) transfers that unclenliness; recall that (at least during the Wandering) the women had to live apart from the men during the unclean "period" (sorry, no pun intended). There's some possibility that, especially among the Essene sect, that women DID live apart from the men during that time. Besides, if the "burden of original sin" could be transmitted to any child by any touch then the only way(s) to preserve Jesus from aquisition of this burden would be by either miraculously arranging for Him to never touch anyone, which is contradicted by the records, or by arranging for every person He ever touched to be protected in the same way that Mary was, which is also contradicted by the records. It seems pretty clear that "Original Sin" is supposedly transmitted by growing inside a sin-tainted human, anyway. Hutch