The Immaculate Conception

InLove

at peace
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Texas
Hello,

Would anyone care to enlighten me regarding the subject of the Immaculate Conception? (I think this is the right place to post this? If not, I trust it will be moved to a more appropriate board.)

If there are other threads in the forum that address this question, I have not found them yet.

My question is asked for the purpose of education and understanding, so I hope the thread is a peaceful one.:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Wonderful question, InLove. Unfortunately, I could only come with a Protestant point of view.

;) Sounds like a question for a Catholic, Quahom...
 
All answers interest me, T.S.

And what do you say, Q?

InPeace,
InLove
 
Gracias, Abogato--

I will check it out. I feel better now, because for years, I thought the two "concepts (pun not really intended)" were one in the same. Guess I was not alone.

Pasa buen dia--(sorry, don't have all the necessary symbols--hope it doesn't change the meaning)

InPeace,
InLove
 
(Sorry about the spelling:eek: ) Just a typo--Abogado (gotta proofread before posting--when will I learn?)

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
All answers interest me, T.S.

And what do you say, Q?

InPeace,
InLove
Well,

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

The definition of the Immaculate Conception did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

Does that explain the concept well enough?

v/r

Q
 
Thanks, Quahom--extremely helpful. Mind if I dig a little deeper?

Quahom1 said:
It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.
Q
I just want to make sure I know what I am talking about--the term "Virgin Birth" always refers to the birth of Jesus? Or should one refer to it as the "Virgin Birth of Christ" for the sake of clarity? Are there Catholic sects that hold forth a belief in an actual "Virgin Birth of Mary"? (I understand that this would not refer to the Immaculate Conception.)

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
Thanks, Quahom--extremely helpful. Mind if I dig a little deeper?


I just want to make sure I know what I am talking about--the term "Virgin Birth" always refers to the birth of Jesus? Or should one refer to it as the "Virgin Birth of Christ" for the sake of clarity? Are there Catholic sects that hold forth a belief in an actual "Virgin Birth of Mary"? (I understand that this would not refer to the Immaculate Conception.)

InPeace,
InLove
If there is (and I'm sure there probably is), it does not conform with the official Catholic doctrine. Virgin Birth always refers to the Birth of Jesus (which is not impossible by the way, just considered improbable. Women have had "virgin" births of children throughout history, but they've always been girls born). The "miracle" is that this "virgin birth" brought forth a male child. By today's scientific understanding of DNA, this causes an eyebrow or two to be raised by the sceptics, and literally a leap of faith by those who believe (including me). When x and x are added together, one does not normally get xy (it violates algebraic principles of math).

But then we don't know everything, now do we...:D

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
If there is (and I'm sure there probably is), it does not conform with the official Catholic doctrine. Virgin Birth always refers to the Birth of Jesus (which is not impossible by the way, just considered improbable. Women have had "virgin" births of children throughout history, but they've always been girls born). The "miracle" is that this "virgin birth" brought forth a male child. By today's scientific understanding of DNA, this causes an eyebrow or two to be raised by the sceptics, and literally a leap of faith by those who believe (including me). When x and x are added together, one does not normally get xy (it violates algebraic principles of math).

But then we don't know everything, now do we...:D

v/r

Q

Dear Q,

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to question the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

I do question the part I highlighted in blue. Have you got some data?

I'm pretty sure the skeptics are raising their eyebrows over more than the fact that Jesus was male.

My point is that we pretty much have to consider the entire conception and birth of Jesus a miracle. It is literally a leap of faith.

peace,
lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
Dear Q,

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to question the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

I do question the part I highlighted in blue. Have you got some data?

I'm pretty sure the skeptics are raising their eyebrows over more than the fact that Jesus was male.

My point is that we pretty much have to consider the entire conception and birth of Jesus a miracle. It is literally a leap of faith.

peace,
lunamoth
I suggest you research "sponteneous conception" and the historical facts about women giving birth (for no reason...they were not known to man), to female children with an identical DNA as themselves. It is a historical fact. It is also within recent (relative history) times. It happens about as much as a child born with both genitalia intact. Surely you don't doubt that, since parents must agonize over the choice of which way to let the child mature...

I didn't make this up. In every situation. The female child (offspring) has identical DNA to the female parent. Goes right along with Siamese Twins, and children born with only their cerabral cortex and nothing else...it happens.

BTW...I didn't highlight anything in any color...I don't know how or why that happened.

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
I suggest you research "sponteneous conception" and the historical facts about women giving birth (for no reason...they were not known to man), to female children with an identical DNA as themselves. It is a historical fact. It is also within recent (relative history) times. It happens about as much as a child born with both genitalia intact. Surely you don't doubt that, since parents must agonize over the choice of which way to let the child mature...

I didn't make this up. In every situation. The female child (offspring) has identical DNA to the female parent. Goes right along with Siamese Twins, and children born with only their cerabral cortex and nothing else...it happens.

BTW...I didn't highlight anything in any color...I don't know how or why that happened.

v/r

Q

Hi Q, This has piqued my interest enough that I will research it when I have time (probably tonight). So, you are saying that since the development of DNA testing there have been born spontaneous human clones? Siamese twins result from cell division errors in the first few stages after fertilization. However, to get a sponaneous clone either there has to be an error during meiosis of the the ripening egg in which all of the chromosomes fail to separate and so end up in one egg (and then the egg still behaves like a normal fertilized egg) or two eggs somehow combine and act like a fertilized egg.

Oh, I highlighted your words in blue jsut to be sure there was no mistake about what I was questioning.

Thank you,
lunamoth
 
Googling spontaneous conception so far has shown that the term is used for any "natural" conception (as opposed to artificial conception using assisted techniques such as IVF).

I'll keep looking. Have any more hints to help the search?

lunamoth
 
Well-the thread is unwinding, but I don't mind at all--I would like to have more information on this subject, as well--I have never, ever heard of a virgin birth other than that of Christ (and Mary--which I personally discount as either rumor or something worse).

As always, my curiosity is well-intact.:) :confused:

InPeace,
InLove
 
lunamoth said:
Googling spontaneous conception so far has shown that the term is used for any "natural" conception (as opposed to artificial conception using assisted techniques such as IVF).

I'll keep looking. Have any more hints to help the search?

lunamoth
parthenogenesis is the term that will help. I'm not going to say "go here, or go there", because that is leading. It is a phenomenon that is strange, but does happen, and there are arguements that it has happened within the human ranks, including recently (relatively speaking, and no I don't mean tabloid news). I will see if I can pull up the articles I saw, for your review.

v/r

Q
 
InLove said:
Well-the thread is unwinding, but I don't mind at all--I would like to have more information on this subject, as well--I have never, ever heard of a virgin birth other than that of Christ (and Mary--which I personally discount as either rumor or something worse).

As always, my curiosity is well-intact.:) :confused:

InPeace,
InLove
No, of course we should stick to the original thought. Luna just got me wanting to show all I know in two seconds or less...;) I think it was a success.

v/r

Q
 
Interesting--interesting--found the thread on parthenogenesis on the "science" board. Thanks, Q and Luna.

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
Hello,

Would anyone care to enlighten me regarding the subject of the Immaculate Conception? (I think this is the right place to post this? If not, I trust it will be moved to a more appropriate board.)

If there are other threads in the forum that address this question, I have not found them yet.

My question is asked for the purpose of education and understanding, so I hope the thread is a peaceful one.:)

InPeace,
InLove


This doctrine originated in the second century when Christrianity was led by the Gentile Christian church. From the ranks of Christianity many aberrant factions arose claiming to represent the true understanding of Chrstianity...Gnosticism was one such aberrant Chrstian group.

Gnosticism was rejected by the leading Christian faction, a faction led by the Roman Catholic church, because Gnosticism "merged myths and cults, incorporating a few Christian elements with adaptations of Mithraism, astrology, magical spells, and anything else lying to hand.....Although the Gnostics claimed to offer a higher knowledge than the simple faiith of the church, their teachings were highly mythological and encountered an opposition, no less vehement than that of the church.

Gnostic sects welcomed numerous gospels other than the four which were finally included in the canon, and enjoyed producing 'secret' or apocryphal godpels, acts, epistles and apocaplypses......many of these 'apocryphal' texts portrayed Jesus as a strenous advocate of sexual renunciation. Some developed the reticent traditions of Jesus' infancy to provide stories about Mary's parents, and her (miraculous) birth and perpetual virginity". Illustrated History of Christianity....chapter 1...pp28-29.



precept
 
precept said:
This doctrine originated in the second century when Christrianity was led by the Gentile Christian church. From the ranks of Christianity many aberrant factions arose claiming to represent the true understanding of Chrstianity...Gnosticism was one such aberrant Chrstian group.

Gnosticism was rejected by the leading Christian faction, a faction led by the Roman Catholic church, because Gnosticism "merged myths and cults, incorporating a few Christian elements with adaptations of Mithraism, astrology, magical spells, and anything else lying to hand.....Although the Gnostics claimed to offer a higher knowledge than the simple faiith of the church, their teachings were highly mythological and encountered an opposition, no less vehement than that of the church.

Gnostic sects welcomed numerous gospels other than the four which were finally included in the canon, and enjoyed producing 'secret' or apocryphal godpels, acts, epistles and apocaplypses......many of these 'apocryphal' texts portrayed Jesus as a strenous advocate of sexual renunciation. Some developed the reticent traditions of Jesus' infancy to provide stories about Mary's parents, and her (miraculous) birth and perpetual virginity". Illustrated History of Christianity....chapter 1...pp28-29.



precept
I'm afraid that is quite inaccurate. It originated much much later, after the Catholic church was official, Precept. And the Catholic church was not official until well into the 4th and 5th centuries. Nor was it accepted by a great many of Catholics. In fact today it is still not accepted by a great many Catholics.

And for your information...the Church is still lead by Gentiles...

You better take your reference book back for a refund.

Gnosticism had nothing to do with anything human, female or otherwise. They could care less about Miriam (Mary).

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
I'm afraid that is quite inaccurate. It originated much much later, after the Catholic church was official, Precept. And the Catholic church was not official until well into the 4th and 5th centuries. Nor was it accepted by a great many of Catholics. In fact today it is still not accepted by a great many Catholics.

And for your information...the Church is still lead by Gentiles...

You better take your reference book back for a refund.

Gnosticism had nothing to do with anything human, female or otherwise. They could care less about Miriam (Mary).

Q


Q, your response is another example of those who would rather propagate their fictious imaginings passed off as truth. In my above presents I quoted from no less an authority than the "Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity"...You then summarily dismissed this world recognized scholarship of Christian history as officially published under the world recognized University of Oxford....And what did you offer to refute this scholarly work?...your own delusionary imaginings as follows...." I'm afraid that is quite inaccurate. It originated much much later, after the Catholic church was official, Precept. And the Catholic church was not official until well into the 4th and 5th centuries. Nor was it accepted by a great many of Catholics. In fact today it is still not accepted by a great many Catholics.
And for your information...the Church is still lead by Gentiles...

You better take your reference book back for a refund.

Gnosticism had nothing to do with anything human, female or otherwise. They could care less about Miriam (Mary)."


How ridiculous! What travesty!

You insult your readership as unintelligent and unable to determine fact from fiction!

Use your best weapon! as has been used by your kind for the many past centuries. And as is being used now! Censor truth! Hide it! Burn it!as in past times. Better yet erase it from public view. The errors of the past as well as the present will always surface to your embarrasment!

You have my word!


precept
 
Back
Top