Confused about theological diversity

  • Thread starter Thread starter WoundedIcon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Mary weren’t subject to the same conditions of humanity as everyone else, wouldn’t it make it impossible for Christ to become truly human? 😃
She was subject to the same conditions of humanity as everyone else with a human body and what that brings, and the need for justification and the Holy Spirit. It was in anticipation of her acceptance of the Holy Spirit, already known to God at her conception that she was preserved by Christ receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit as one who is baptised. Before Christ instituted baptism all souls were awaiting redemption. From Ineffabilis Deus (1854):
The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]

13. Genesis 3:15

**14.Quo circa sicut Christus Dei hominumque mediator, humana assumpta natura, delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decretia, illud cruci triumphator affixit; sic Sanctissima Virgo, Arctissimo et indissolubili vinculo cum eo conjuncta, una cum illo et per illum, sempiternas contra venenosum serpentem inimicitias exercens, ac de ipso plenissime triumphans, illus caput immaculato pede contrivit. **
 
But that assumes that we are sinful at the moment of birth
Are we born missing the mark? Are we born in communion with the Holy Spirit?
She had to have been subject to the same conditions as the rest of us right? Was she spared from the predisposition to sin? Is that the correct way to look at it?
No, not at all.
See for example:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6777705&postcount=34http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7350078&postcount=31

See also:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4029910&postcount=35
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4029912&postcount=36
 
Are we born missing the mark? Are we born in communion with the Holy Spirit?
Weakly so… we lack grace, but without some spark of the connection to the divine we would be but dust in the wind… but Mary was born full of Grace. I’m certain that grace assisted her in resisting sin.
 
I don’t see a problem with the belief in the immaculate conception. My problem is making it dogma. I believe it was unnecessary. It seems to me that in the dogma of the IC she was not subject to the same conditions of humanity as the rest of us in which Christ became incarnate. I just don’t get it. What was she spared from? It wasn’t death. So what was it?🤷

I don’t see why one would HAVE to believe that in order to be a Catholic. Please correct me if I’m wrong on anything. I don’t want to offend anyone or misinterpret anything. 😃
The reason it was defined is because of the different methods by which the Eastern and Western Churches receive doctrine.

In the East the sinlessness and purity of the Theotokos is in our Liturgy. We already teach it every Sunday; we don’t need to define it. The Liturgy is how we’re used to being taught the Faith. In the West it’s not there, and they like to receive the teaching of the Faith through ecumenical councils, papal bulls, etc. - which is perfectly fine; I used to be a Catholic of the Roman Rite and retained a fondness for that method of teaching as well (I strive to love the whole Church, not just my rite). So they defined the dogma formally.

Also, the Immaculate Conception is a part of the popular piety of the Church. The Pope differs from the other bishops in that he speaks in a special way as a voice for the laity, the voice of the sensus fidelium - for example, as the Orthodox Metroplitan John Zizioulas noted (“The Theological Problem of ‘Reception’”, Centro pro Unione Bulletin 26 (1984), 3-6), the Papal signing of the decrees of an Ecumenical Council represent the final stage of the reception of a dogma. Likewise, the German theologian Geiselmann notes (cf. Lonergan, Method in Theology p. 320) that the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception is a validation and confirmation of what was already part of the piety of the Church. To quote Fr. Lonergan,
In closing this brief section, I note Professor Geiselmann’s view that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption of Our Lady differ from those defined in ecumenical councils. The latter settle controverted issues. The former repeat what was already taught and celebrated in the whole Catholic Church. Accordingly they are named by him “cultic”. Their sole effect was that the solemn teaching office now proclaims what formerly was proclaimed by the ordinary teaching office.
People like the comfort of certainty, of knowing that what they do and believe has the stamp of approval as the truth, as official dogma. There’s nothing wrong with that - that’s why the Church has a teaching function and not just a pastoral one, as if the two could even be separated.
 
Now THAT explains it !!! I guess I don’t really have a problem with it now. Thanks for the links, it really cleared it up for me.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top