Defense of Immaculate Conception

[Kirkk]

Looking at the information published on the CA website (catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp) one of the paragraphs says this:

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

I don’t see how this argument holds, because we as Catholics believe in infant baptism to free the child from original sin.

Doesn’t something seem wrong in the argument or am I reading this wrong.

God Bless.

Keith

 

[JohnPaul0]

It can’t refer to every human because Jesus had no sin, yet he was fully human. Since there must be an exception for Jesus, an exception for Mary is possible, too.

 

[kleary]

Looking at the information published on the CA website (catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp) one of the paragraphs says this:

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

I don’t see how this argument holds, because we as Catholics believe in infant baptism to free the child from original sin.

Doesn’t something seem wrong in the argument or am I reading this wrong.

God Bless.

Keith

I think you are reading it wrong. The argument given shows possible holes in the Fundamentalist interpretation of that verse of Scripture that deny the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. It does not state the Church teaches that newborn infants are not stained with Original sin.

Besides if you realy know the Immaculate Conception Teaching, and learn that God applied what Jesus did on Calvary to Mary’s soul at her conception then you can appreciate God for all He is… that He can reach forward in time to apply a future event to the present day.

That is what is so awesome about Holy Mass…God reaches across time to make present what He did 2006 years ago through the Mass! God is not limited to time and space.

Ken

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How about if you consider- “Any who can hear or read Paul’s comments are so subject to sin to have surely comment sin to some extent” As a wordy version of the same?

 

[VociMike]

The simplest answer to “all have sinned” is to ask what sin a newborn baby has committed. For Paul did not say “all are subject to sin” or “all are stained by sin” but rather the active “all have sinned,” so it does no good to claim that this applies to the baby’s fallen nature or Original Sin.

 

[awalt]

“All have sinned” is clearly a figure of speech since we know one exception - Jesus. In context, it’s talking about mankind in general, not taking a census of individuals. It’s like saying “Everybody’s getting a little out of control around here” - which doesn’t literally mean everybody.