Immaculate Conception??

[MaHeRsHaLaL]

Well, I think we do have strong legs to stand on, but that is because we Catholics accept the teaching authority of the Church, and hold that Tradition as well as Holy Scriptures contain divine revelation. Once you accept that, you don’t necessarily have to see something “explicitly” in the Scriptures to believe it, although I believe that all Catholic teaching is there, either implicitly or explicitly.

I think it is important to note the Catholics hold that public revelation ended when St. John composed the last sentence in the book of Revelation. Therefore, there are no “new” doctrines that the Church can add; rather, there is just a development of a truth that was already there.

Speaking of the book of Revelation, there is a beautiful image contained therein that is usually read on Marian feast days, about seeing a woman clothed with the sun, Chapter 12. It is obviously a reference to the Virgin Mary, and I think that one can logically infer from this passage, as well as the passage in John’s Gospel, where the Lord places her in St. John’s hands, that she continues to have a relationship with the Church, acting as our spiritual mother.

Scott

I believe the woman in this verse is the bride of Christ or the church herself. She is wearing a crown of 12 stars symbolizing that she is governed by the 12 apostles with the authority of the Priesthood.

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

MaHeRsHaLaL:

The Virgin Mary is held with incredible esteem and given attributes neigh on divine by the church and I wonder why? What purpose does that serve?

Yes, Mary IS held with great esteem by Catholics, but how has the Church attributed any kind of divinity on Mary?
Certainly Mary could have sinned - but she didn’t. Adam & Eve were born without Original sin - were they divine? Angels are without original sin - are they divine?

Hubriss makes the mistaken assumption that the Immaculate Conception refers to Jesus rather than Mary.

MaHeRsHaLaL:

I believe the woman in this verse is the bride of Christ or the church herself. She is wearing a crown of 12 stars symbolizing that she is governed by the 12 apostles with the authority of the Priesthood.

I don’t know if the woman in Rev. is the bride of Christ. Some scholars hold that the woman is Israel, but since she gives birth to a child who is revealed to be Jesus (as both Psalms 2:9 and Rev. 19:11-16 support), this would indicate that this woman is Mary.

MaHeRsHaLaL:

Does my salvation depend on them?

I not sure, but I suspect so.

The Marian doctrines may not be explicitly in Scripture, but they are implicitly. If that is not enough, it would be well to note that they are not in any way contradictory to Scripture.

Why such Biblical ambiguity on Mary? It is impossible to know the mind of God, but I think it is a good bet that it might be to underline the authority of the Church.

Why bother listen to a Church if it couldn’t say anything that mattered? Our relationship with God is reflected in our relationship with the Church he instituted.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations & to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13), Church teaching is sufficient to be held as truth. (Matt. 28:18-20, 1 Tim. 3:15).

The Bible shows that the Church speaks with authority given it by Jesus Christ. Luke 10:16 states that “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

To reject the Church is to reject Christ, & to further reject the Father.

I’m not sure, but I would suspect that this might have a detrimental effect on one’s ultimate salvation.

Chris

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

See I wondered about that. I can understand the logic behind Jesus being born without “original sin.” But why would Mary need to be sinless in order for that to take place?
I would think it would violate Gods own law to have a person who could not sin. If this were the case the rest of us are at risk of going to hell while Mary is at no risk.
Why would God give here this pass?

I once had a thought that Mary is created sinless because Mary is the personification of the Church who is also created sinless.

I’m not sure if this thought has much support in these forums; But it works for me.

 

[YADA]

I believe the woman in this verse is the bride of Christ or the church herself. She is wearing a crown of 12 stars symbolizing that she is governed by the 12 apostles with the authority of the Priesthood.

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

We also see thee Chruch in this passage. You see that as only one truth to the passae. It is not an either / or passage. The passage cana refer to both Mary and the Church, as Mary prefigured the Chruch. Mary is the embodiment of the Christian. Mary said “Yes” to the Lord. She did not hedge her bets or hold back no matter the cost to herself. Mary instructs us to “Do whatever He [Jesus] tells you”. Mary remains ever faithful from conception to death on the cross to the tongues of fire at Pentacost.

Consider that the Child is clearly seen as “Jesus”, the “ancient foe” as satan, the twelve stars as the leaders of the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles [all people] even as the references also call to mind the Jews [as the Chosen] poeple of God and and the Christian Church leadership. So the imagery calls to mind Mary in addition to the “Church”

Both / And NOT Either / Or

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Protestants are not going to agree with the Doctrines surrounding Mary because they are not in the Bible. My curiosity is why they are important. Are there any crucial doctrines that are based on them?

Does my salvation depend on them?

Is peace with God important ? Then you need a mediator, one who can be fully on God’s side, & also fully on man’s. IOW, a mediator Who is God yet also man.​

But God is not man - far from it. God is Infinitely Holy - man is…not. Anything but, in fact. So we need a mediator, one who can be fully on God’s side, & also fully on man’s.

IOW, there is a problem; two, in fact - one of logic, & one of our alienation from God. For Jesus Christ to be both God & man is God’s solution.

But: how does Jesus Christ come to be man at all ? He is God by Nature & His Person is that of God the Word - & God the Word is not created; but man is created. So how does God the Word become a man ? By being born as a man - by taking a human nature such as all men have; & they have it by being born from another human being. And Mary is the woman from whom He is born; she is (IOW) His mother, & His only human parent. She bore Him, but no man begot Him. He is the legal son of St.Joseph, & therefore (in that culture) truly his son - but not his son by bodily descent.

The difference between His Virginal Conception & our own, is that no human father was involved - instead, the Holy Spirit brought about, in a miraculous manner, what He ordinarily brings about by human fathers in the ordinary course of nature. As the Father of the Son is God the Father, & Him Alone, there was no need or function for a human father. All human begetting is through the Presence of the Spirit, for He is the Source of all life - the miracle is in the absence of a human father from this conception, the Conception in time & space of the Eternal & Uncreated Son of God.

Without Mary for His mother, God the Eternal Word is not man, & we have no Mediator - which undermines both the NT & the Faith of which it is an expression. So it is essential that He be “born of a woman, born under the Law” - not in seeming or in words, but truly, really, substantially, irreversibly. Otherwise “He is not Risen, & we are still in our sins”. That Mary is truly His mother, as truly, really, substantially, irreversibly as other men are sons of their mothers, is a consequence of His purpose to be “God-with-us” as man that He might save men. It is as real & stubborn a fact as that He is the Risen Lord. Its status as a reality is more important than how it comes to us. In principle, God “could have” saved us in other ways, or have protected us from sinning at all, or not have saved us - what happened in reality was that He became “a man like us in all things, sin alone excepted” (Hebrews 4).

His mother could in principle have been born a sinner; & she certainly would have been - her Immaculate Conception was a privilege & grace to equip her for her vocation, which was, to be His mother. It comes from His Love & Grace, & is the Divine Source of her love & grace. Apart from Him, not only can she do nothing - she is nothing. Nothing she has been graced with is for her alone: everything that any member of Christ receives, is for all the members. Where there is grace, there should be fruitfulness in love, & unreserved obedience; the greater the grace, the more fruit is expected. IOW, we are responsible to God for His gifts; Mary more than any of us, because she has received more.

Any use to you ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I once had a thought that Mary is created sinless because Mary is the personification of the Church who is also created sinless.

I’m not sure if this thought has much support in these forums; But it works for me.

There is an indissoluble connection betwen them - ​

 

[Rolltide]

If the truths of the Marian Doctrine were that clear in scriptures I would be Catholic. I would not argue with your beliefs even if they were based on implications in the scriptures. I believe in things that are not explicitly stated in the bible, we only see shadows of them. So I am not demeaning your beliefs only trying to understand them.

Well, let’s take a look at the implications in the Scriptures, especially Luke 1:28. The passage, as translated in most Catholic versions of the Bible, states “Hail, full of grace”. Most Protestants translate this as “highly favored one”. Why does it make a difference? Here’s what Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch have to say about it in The Ignatius Study Bible, The Gospel of Luke:

"full of grace: This is the only biblical instance where an angel addresses someone by a title instead of a personal name. Two considerations help to clarify its meaning. (1) The expression “full of grace” is rooted in Catholic tradition and traced to St. Jerome’s translation of this verse in the Latin Vulgate. Although fundamentally accurate, it lacks some of the depth of the Greek original. Luke could have described her with the words “full of grace” (Gk. pleres charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharitomene) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. It indicates that God has already “graced” Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who “has been” and “is now” filled with divine life. (2) Alternative translations like “favored one” or “highly favored” are possible but inadequate. Because of the unparalleled role that Mary accepts at this turning point in salvation history, the best translation is the most exalted one. For God endowed Mary with an abundance of grace to prepare her for the vocation of divine motherhood and to make her a sterling example of Christian holiness (CCC 490-93, 722)

Gabriel’s declaration points in the direction of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. According to Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition Ineffabilis Deus, Luke’s Annunciation narrative is an important indicator of Mary’s lifelong holiness. God is her “Savior” (1:47) in the most perfect way possible: he sanctified Mary in the first instance of her conception and preserved her entirely from sin and even from the inclination toward sin that we experience."

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s another significant argument that Hahn advances in the same work:
**
Mary, Ark of the Covenant**

"Luke’s Gospel tells us more about the Mother of Jesus than any other book in the New Testament. Most of this information is packed within his first two chapters, where Luke strings together some of the most beautiful traditions we have about her life and mission. The deeper we delve into Luke’s narrative, the mroe we appreciate the way in which Luke tells us the story of Mary. One example of this is found in the story of the Visitation. On one hand, it tells of a joyous encounter between two expectant mothers, on another, it recalls memorable stories told in the Old Testament about the Ark of the Covenant. By alluding to these ancient traditions, Luke expands the vision of the careful reader considerably. For he leads us to see Mary as the Ark of God’s New Covenant and implies that the sacred Ark of the Old Covenant merely prefigured a more wonderful Ark to come: the Mother of the divine Messiah.

One tradition that Luke draws upon is from 2 Samuel. He intentionally sets up the subtle but significant parallels between Mary’s Visitation with Elizabeth and David’s effort to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem narrated in 2 Sam 6. When Luke tells us that Mary “arose and went” into the Judean hill country to visit her kinswoman (Lk 1:39), he reminds us of how David “arose and went” into the same region centuries earlier to retrieve the Ark (2 Sam 6:2). Upon Mary’s arrival, Elizabeth is struck by the same sense of awe and unworthiness before Mary (Lk 1:43) that David felt standing before the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:9). Parallels continue as the joy surrounding this great encounter causes the infant John to leap with excitement (Lk 1:41), much as David danced with excitement before the Ark (2 Sam 6:16). Finally, Luke adds that Mary stayed in the “house of Zechariah” for “three months” (Lk 1:40, 56), recalling how the Ark of the Covenant was temporarily stationed in the “house of Obed-edom” for a waiting period of “three months” (2 Sam 6:11). Taken together, these parallels show us that Mary now assumes a role in salvation history that was once played by the Ark of the Covenant. Like the golden chest, she is a sacred vessel where the Lord’s presence dwells intimately with his people."

continued…

 

[Rolltide]

"Luke also draws upon a second tradition from the Books of Chronicles. This time he brings into his story a highly significant expression once connected with the Ark. The term shows up in Lk 1:42, where Elizabeth bursts out with an exuberant cry at the arrival of Mary and her Child. Although the Greek verb translated as “exclaimed” seems ordinary enough, it is hardly ever used in the Bible. In fact, it is found only here in the entire New Testament. Its presence in the Greek Old Testament is likewise sparse, appearing only five times. Why is this important? Because every time the expression is used in the Old Testament, if forms part of the stories surrounding the Ark of the Covenant. In particular, it refers to the melodic sounds made by Levitical singers and musicians when they glorify the Lord in song. It thus describes the “exulting” voice of instruments that were played before the Ark as David carried it in procession to Jerusalem (1 Chron 15:28; 16:4-5) and as Solomon transferred the Ark to its final resting place in the Temple (2 Chron 5:13). Alluding to these episodes, Luke connects this same expression with the melodic cry of another Levitical descendant, the aged Elizabeth (Lk 1:5). She too lifts up her voice in liturgical praise, not before the golden chest, but before Mary. Luke’s remarkable familiarity with these ancient stories enables him to select even a single word that will whisper to his readers that this young Mother of the Messiah is the new Ark of the Covenant.

For the reader with eyes to see and ears to hear, Luke has given us a vision of the Virgin Mary that becomes ever more glorious the deeper we dig into the Scriptures. Our ability to see Mary as he did depends in part on our knowledge of the Old Testament and in part on our sensitivity to Luke’s skillful use of it. By choosing his words and phrases carefully, he is able to weave various strands of biblical tradition into his narrative, adding beauty and depth to his already elegant prose. Little wonder the Church’s liturgical and theological traditions have so often described Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. This vision is not merely the fruit of mystical speculation from a later age. It is already embedded within the Infancy Narrative of Luke’s Gospel."

 

[MaHeRsHaLaL]

"Luke also draws upon a second tradition from the Books of Chronicles. This time he brings into his story a highly significant expression once connected with the Ark. The term shows up in Lk 1:42, where Elizabeth bursts out with an exuberant cry at the arrival of Mary and her Child. Although the Greek verb translated as “exclaimed” seems ordinary enough, it is hardly ever used in the Bible. In fact, it is found only here in the entire New Testament. Its presence in the Greek Old Testament is likewise sparse, appearing only five times. Why is this important? Because every time the expression is used in the Old Testament, if forms part of the stories surrounding the Ark of the Covenant. In particular, it refers to the melodic sounds made by Levitical singers and musicians when they glorify the Lord in song. It thus describes the “exulting” voice of instruments that were played before the Ark as David carried it in procession to Jerusalem (1 Chron 15:28; 16:4-5) and as Solomon transferred the Ark to its final resting place in the Temple (2 Chron 5:13). Alluding to these episodes, Luke connects this same expression with the melodic cry of another Levitical descendant, the aged Elizabeth (Lk 1:5). She too lifts up her voice in liturgical praise, not before the golden chest, but before Mary. Luke’s remarkable familiarity with these ancient stories enables him to select even a single word that will whisper to his readers that this young Mother of the Messiah is the new Ark of the Covenant.

For the reader with eyes to see and ears to hear, Luke has given us a vision of the Virgin Mary that becomes ever more glorious the deeper we dig into the Scriptures. Our ability to see Mary as he did depends in part on our knowledge of the Old Testament and in part on our sensitivity to Luke’s skillful use of it. By choosing his words and phrases carefully, he is able to weave various strands of biblical tradition into his narrative, adding beauty and depth to his already elegant prose. Little wonder the Church’s liturgical and theological traditions have so often described Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. This vision is not merely the fruit of mystical speculation from a later age. It is already embedded within the Infancy Narrative of Luke’s Gospel."

I would say this is very meaningful, as in the case of the Ark, it’s contents were symbolic of Christ. In Mary’s case, contained within her womb was the actual Christ. Great Symbolism!!!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The real reason that the Immaculate Conception is important is because by it Jesus gets to share in Mary’s NON inclination towards sin–just like Adam and Eve had before the fall–

YET

Also partake of Mary’s fallen but not sinful humanity–which like Adam and Eve’s humanity after the fall–had to work for a living!

And the reason that God didn’t create Jesus’ humanity apart from Mary’s humanity is if He did:

Then Jesus wouldn’t be our savior because He would not be fully man like us–and why is that?

Being not inclined to sin is fine–God created Adam and Eve like that so if He created Jesus’ humanity just like that that is no problem!

However:

If God DIRECTLY created Jesus’ humanity with no need to having to work–like Adam and Eve’s humanity was after the fall–then Christ wouldn’t be like us–he wouldn’t work in a carpenter’s shop

BUT

If God took the opposite course and DIRECTLY created Jesus’ humanity with that NEED to work like Adam and Eve had after the fall

Then God would be unjust!

Why? Because Jesus had done nothing wrong to suffer that!

God could not Directly do that because God is just!

However:

If God did not Directly create that humanity for Jesus but if Jesus Indirectly inherrited that humanity from Mary that had to work as Adam and Eve did–that would be OK

Because it wouldn’t be PROSCRIBED for Jesus but Jesus would be Lovingly assuming it!

Jesus couldn’t ASSUME Inclination towards sin but Jesus could ASSUME the need to work like all of us humans have had to do since the fall of Adam and Eve!

So by Mary being Immaculately Conceived Jesus gets to partake in all the Falleness of humanity apart from sin so He can be our savior

without having to share in Inclination towards sin!

The Immaculate Conception of Mary paves the way for Both things to be true!

And that is why it is important–not because of what Mary was–but because of what Jesus our savior was!

 

[MaHeRsHaLaL]

The real reason that the Immaculate Conception is important is because by it Jesus gets to share in Mary’s NON inclination towards sin–just like Adam and Eve had before the fall–

YET

Also partake of Mary’s fallen but not sinful humanity–which like Adam and Eve’s humanity after the fall–had to work for a living!

And the reason that God didn’t create Jesus’ humanity apart from Mary’s humanity is if He did:

Then Jesus wouldn’t be our savior because He would not be fully man like us–and why is that?

Being not inclined to sin is fine–God created Adam and Eve like that so if He created Jesus’ humanity just like that that is no problem!

However:

If God DIRECTLY created Jesus’ humanity with no need to having to work–like Adam and Eve’s humanity was after the fall–then Christ wouldn’t be like us–he wouldn’t work in a carpenter’s shop

BUT

If God took the opposite course and DIRECTLY created Jesus’ humanity with that NEED to work like Adam and Eve had after the fall

Then God would be unjust!

Why? Because Jesus had done nothing wrong to suffer that!

God could not Directly do that because God is just!

However:

If God did not Directly create that humanity for Jesus but if Jesus Indirectly inherrited that humanity from Mary that had to work as Adam and Eve did–that would be OK

Because it wouldn’t be PROSCRIBED for Jesus but Jesus would be Lovingly assuming it!

Jesus couldn’t ASSUME Inclination towards sin but Jesus could ASSUME the need to work like all of us humans have had to do since the fall of Adam and Eve!

So by Mary being Immaculately Conceived Jesus gets to partake in all the Falleness of humanity apart from sin so He can be our savior

without having to share in Inclination towards sin!

The Immaculate Conception of Mary paves the way for Both things to be true!

And that is why it is important–not because of what Mary was–but because of what Jesus our savior was!

I have a simpler solution. The doctrine of original sin is false. If we are discussing guilt and not punishing those who did not commit a given sin then why am I (at birth) guilty of Adams sin? Why are each of use created in a guilty state. The truth is we are not!! We live in a sinful world, we are constantly tempted to do wrong, but we are not born guilty. You admitted yourself that if we were born guilty than God would be at fault.
You will note when Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden God did not curse Adam he cursed the ground for Adams’ sake “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;”
How unjust would our God be if he allowed infants to be born with the stain of another mans’ (Adam’s) sin.
The truth is Mary was NOT born with the stain of original sin because it does not exist and to say it does is to condemn God and make him the author of evil.

 

[Rolltide]

I have a simpler solution. The doctrine of original sin is false. If we are discussing guilt and not punishing those who did not commit a given sin then why am I (at birth) guilty of Adams sin? Why are each of use created in a guilty state. The truth is we are not!! We live in a sinful world, we are constantly tempted to do wrong, but we are not born guilty. You admitted yourself that if we were born guilty than God would be at fault.
You will note when Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden God did not curse Adam he cursed the ground for Adams’ sake “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;”
How unjust would our God be if he allowed infants to be born with the stain of another mans’ (Adam’s) sin.
The truth is Mary was NOT born with the stain of original sin because it does not exist and to say it does is to condemn God and make him the author of evil.

Well, believe it or not, this is a theological step forward for you. Now you’re moving close to the Orthodox point of view, which is not necessarily incompatible with the Catholic point of view and FAR closer than most Protestant points of view. We just express terms somewhat differently than the Orthodox. The Orthodox don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception per se, because their concept of Original Sin is different. Even so, they do express the exact same importance and reverence for the Virgin Mary as Catholics, and agree with us on most other Marian doctrines like the Assumption, which they refer to as the Dormition. Although you’re not quite to the Catholic point of view yet, you are beginning to see the Biblical and theological roots of our beliefs. If we can just now clarify and prove original sin for you, that leaves the Catholic view as the alternative.

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s another good selection from right here on Catholic Answers about Mary and the Immaculate Conception:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… The doctrine of original sin is false. If we are discussing guilt and not punishing those who did not commit a given sin then why am I (at birth) guilty of Adams sin? …

That is a thought proposed by many people, particularly muslims.

But the concept of original sin is not that we did something wrong or that we are being punished for Adam’s sin, but rather that can not inherit everlasting life because Adam and Eve lost it for us. We can not inherit something that our parents do not have. We need the Grace of God to give us back that everlasting life. And that Grace comes to us in the form of a new Adam - the Groom Jesus, and a new Eve - His Bride, The Church.

There are some connections between Mary and The Church. I’ve heard that Mary is the personification of The Church. I’m not sure exactly what it means, but I suppose if The Church was human it would be someone exactly like Mary.

And back to the context of Immaculate Conception, I can only repeat myself in post # 23.
:twocents:

 

[MaHeRsHaLaL]

Well, believe it or not, this is a theological step forward for you. Now you’re moving close to the Orthodox point of view, which is not necessarily incompatible with the Catholic point of view and FAR closer than most Protestant points of view. We just express terms somewhat differently than the Orthodox. The Orthodox don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception per se, because their concept of Original Sin is different. Even so, they do express the exact same importance and reverence for the Virgin Mary as Catholics, and agree with us on most other Marian doctrines like the Assumption, which they refer to as the Dormition. Although you’re not quite to the Catholic point of view yet, you are beginning to see the Biblical and theological roots of our beliefs. If we can just now clarify and prove original sin for you, that leaves the Catholic view as the alternative.

Now help me out. If all I was guilty of was original sin, if I had never committed personal sin, could I go to heaven?
In other words what are the effects of original sin?
I would say (although I would not call it original sin) that the effects of Adams transgression includ temporal death (adam and eve were immortal in the garden), spiritual death (they were in perfect communion with the father in the garden) as well as the cursing of the earth and eves’ child bearing.

We are all redeemed from temporal death through the atonement of Jesus Christ (we will all be resurrected both good and evil), those who have faith in Christ and keep his commandments will be redeemed from spiritual death (we will be able to go to heaven) and obviously once we die the other curses are void.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things with me. many others here say rude and demeaning things about my beliefs and are not willing to share any of the substance of their own thoughts.

 

[davidv]

Now help me out. If all I was guilty of was original sin, if I had never committed personal sin, could I go to heaven?

You, one sense, are not guilty of original sin, since it is not a personal sin. As a previous poster indicated, it is a loss of inheritance. If your inheritance is not restored, then you will have no inheritance. The normative way for a Christian to be restored to inheritance in heaven is through baptism.

In other words what are the effects of original sin?

It is the disorder between intellect and will. In other words, the “mind was darkened” and the “heart was hardened”. We no longer see clearly what God wants from us. And our wills are no longer in sync with our intellect.

I would say (although I would not call it original sin) that the effects of Adams transgression includ temporal death (adam and eve were immortal in the garden), spiritual death (they were in perfect communion with the father in the garden) as well as the cursing of the earth and eves’ child bearing.

We are all redeemed from temporal death through the atonement of Jesus Christ (we will all be resurrected both good and evil), those who have faith in Christ and keep his commandments will be redeemed from spiritual death (we will be able to go to heaven) and obviously once we die the other curses are void.

This is consistant with my understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.

 

[DCD]

I have a simpler solution. The doctrine of original sin is false. If we are discussing guilt and not punishing those who did not commit a given sin then why am I (at birth) guilty of Adams sin? Why are each of use created in a guilty state. The truth is we are not!! We live in a sinful world, we are constantly tempted to do wrong, but we are not born guilty. You admitted yourself that if we were born guilty than God would be at fault.
You will note when Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden God did not curse Adam he cursed the ground for Adams’ sake “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;”
How unjust would our God be if he allowed infants to be born with the stain of another mans’ (Adam’s) sin.
The truth is Mary was NOT born with the stain of original sin because it does not exist and to say it does is to condemn God and make him the author of evil.

Original Sin does exist. Adam’s sin is in his offspring and it is real sin. We are affected by the results of his sin and somehow we are involved in the guilt of it. (Rom:5:19)

This is a mystery which Christ’s Church has been reflecting and unpacking for 2000 plus years. To claim that it does not exist is the easy part, to demonstrate that claim will be another matter and you may want to start a separate thread.

Peace,
David

 

[scott1228]

Mahershalal:

I think that you may have inadvertently come upon something… maybe the importance of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception relates to the doctrine of original sin-- and affirming the need for baptism and the other sacraments.

I think that the Church teaches that while it may be possible for someone who is not baptised to go to heaven through the baptism of desire, nevertheless it is important. The Lord’s pre-eminent command to the Apostles after the Resurrection was to go and baptise. And He Himself set the example.

Something else that the Marian teachings affirm–sometimes it can be so difficult, looking at humanity, to see something good and holy coming from it, and her life shows that yes, we can aspire to holiness, because with Him all things are possible.

And then you look at the saints that especially loved Mary, and you can see how quickly they grew by asking for her help: St. Catherine, St. Louis, St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard, St. Bernadette, the Fatima seers, you could go on and on.

 

[PhilVaz]

The largest Immaculate Conception article is now online and finished. A little early, I was shooting for March 25, feast of Annunciation. Finished early, only took me 174 hours.

Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Juniper Carol, et al)

Phil P