Good luck getting a good answer; I’ve asked repeatedly, and still get nothing. Also, to question the doctrines regarding Mary is not to hate her.
God the Father did not have to create Mary without sin - God could have made Jesus’ human body sinless even if He had been conceived in the womb of a sinner - it wasn’t necessary, but it was extremely fitting.
This is precisely why I cannot understand the “ark” nonsense. I can fully accept the Immaculate Conception under this understanding, but this is the first I have herd it pointed out as being merely “fitting” rather than an actual “requirement” as it is usually presented as, especially under the Ark of the New Covenant argument. The problem becomes, then, why is this a Dogma (ie, a Necessary article of Faith), if it was not necessary to begin with. Same thing for the Assumption, but I don’t want to digress too far.
Yes, but as is always detailed, it is because she assented to God’s will when tested, in contradiction to Eve, who rejected the plan. As such, Mary does not need to be sinless prior to giving her assent, but that assent would, as it is detailed, istelf be the human element of repentance necessary to repair the rift of Sin on our, Human, part.
- Mary the Ark of the New Covanant.
Did the Ark of moses only bear the Seat of God for nine months, or any limited time? No. It is Jesus, the flesh, that, as Aquinas points out, whois the Ark of the New Covenant, the fleshly vessel which was quickened by the very soul of God (and had no other). At best, Mary was the shittim tree from which the wood was taken to make the OT Ark, just as it was from Mary’s body that the Christ was made manifest.
One other thing to remember is that Mary was full of grace.
And while a nice, and singular, passage, its context does not suggest that we can add the weight of force that has been heaped upon it to suggest that such greeting should
mandate the necessity of Mary being both Immaculate and Impeccible, or even simply either/or. It is a stretch to add such late developments in the idea of Grace, and what it means to be “full of” it to a passage that is not repeated in such “strong” language in other Gospels that did record the incidient.
Once again, I’d sincerily like to know the answers as well, because the ones usually used fall far short of explaining this issue in a manner that re-inforces its role as an actual Dei Fide Dogma of the Church. The only argument so far that can stick is that it must be aquiesed to simply as a matter of
Obedience to the Authority of the Pope; something which does not really establish the consistency of the marian Dogma as being, in itself, theologically necessary to one’s Salvation.
If someone could just tell me how the IC or the Assumption are matters of Theological Necessity that has weight on my own Salvation, then I would be more than happy to accept it. I pray with Mary, and I do get the sense that she understands my struggle, and is not perceiving it as an affront to her honor to seek out these answers (despite what others have said on other threads about these topics when Mary is questioned). Some of you may find this suprising, but I fully accept the Queen of Heaven reference. I am just having problems with why a popular devotion became binding upon my soul/Christianity, especially in light of the fact that the Church does express a limit as to what
doctrines can actually become Dogma.
Thanks.
That being the case, it’s often difficult to comprehend a completely sinless human.
) I can only imagine what the lives of the two people who actually lived that relationship out with Our Lord from His birth, and in the case of Our Lady, to the cross and the resurrection as well.