The Immaculate Conception; No stain, or no debt and no stain?

[jimmy]

I was reading The Summa on line and I saw a thing that was a summary of Thomas’ beliefs on the Immaculate Conception. I was wondering whether this would be orthodox.

THE LAW AND THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN UNDER THE LAW . . . . . all
descendants from Adam . . . . . spring from Adam materially and seminally
. . . . . the body lies (not under the guilty, but) under the effects of
original sin . . . . . the stricken body dispositively causes the soul to
contract the guilt of original sin . . . . . all contract both debt and
stain . . . . . all need a Redeemer to destroy the stain contracted
PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; PRIVILEGE OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION . . . .
. the Blessed Virgin . . . . . springs from Adam materially and seminally
. . . . . the body lies (not under the guilt, but) under the effects of
original sin . . . . . the stricken body would have dispositively caused
the soul to contract the guilt of original sin . . . . . the soul at the
moment of union with the body was prevented by the infusion of grace from
contracting sin . . . . . Mary contracted the debt, but not the stain . .
. . . Mary needed a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain
WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION . . . . . Our Blessed
Lord . . . . . springs from Adam materially, not seminally (Q[31], A[1])
. . . . . His body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin .
. . . . the body being entirely free, could not transmit the stain to His
soul . . . . . no preventive grace needed . . . . . Jesus Christ
contracted neither debt nor stain . . . . . Jesus Christ is not redeemed,
but the Redeemer

I saw this on the ccel site. What do you think? Is it acceptable in Catholicism now? Did Mary contract the debt?

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP027.html

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Bull Ineffabilis Deus” (Pope Pius IX, Dec 8, 1954) states:

from the first moment of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of Mankind, kept free from all stain of original sin.

This seems consistent with the passages you cited (which, frankly, I was not aware that St. Thomas had written).

 

[Todd_Easton]

The article on the Immaculate Conception in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia might help clarify things for you.

 

[redeemed1]

You know I can’t find anything in the Bible that says Mary was immaculate or anything like that. Luke records that Mary rejoiced in God her savior so that means if she needs a savior she must have sin. She knew it.

 

[jimmy]

redeemed1:

You know I can’t find anything in the Bible that says Mary was immaculate or anything like that. Luke records that Mary rejoiced in God her savior so that means if she needs a savior she must have sin. She knew it.

No it does not mean that she sinned. Mary was kept free from sin by the grace of her savior, Christ.

There is also no where in the bible that says the bible is the sole authority. If you can find a a quote from the bible that says “sola scriptura” I will succeed the arguement.

It is definately implied in scripture though. Compare Romans 11 and Genesis 3. Also look at the writings of Turtulan, Irenaeus, Justin, and Origen.

There are also many other early writing that backup Mary’ sinlessness.

 

[redeemed1]

Well I guess you will have to continue in your man made teachings, but frankly I believe God and take His Word as truth.

Psalms 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Matthew 5:18 ** For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled**.

1 Peter 1:25 ** But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you**.

 

[jimmy]

Todd Easton:

The article on the Immaculate Conception in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia might help clarify things for you.

So, since animation can be assumed to have happened at the actual conception, does that mean that Mary’ actual conception was without Original Sin? Or was she conieved in Original Sin but sanctified at the same time?

Do you understand what I am saying?

It seems that that article assumes that the animation occurs sometime after conception. If so, then it fits perfect with St. Thomas’ theology. But we must assume that animation occurs at conception. So I am guessing that Mary was concieved in Original Sin, but at the same time she was sanctified because animation occurs at conception I would say.

Some of the saints in the bible, like John the Baptist, can claim to be sanctified in the womb but Mary was sanctified at conception, or animation.

 

[Vincent]

redeemed1:

Luke records that Mary rejoiced in God her savior so that means if she needs a savior she must have sin. She knew it.

Catholics strongly insist that Mary needed a Savior. The Catholic position is that while we are saved after having fallen into the pit of sin, God saved Mary from ever falling into the pit in the first place. In fact, what Catholics believe about Mary implies that she had an even greater reason to call God her Savior than the rest of us.

How do Catholics read Scripture to arrive at such conclusions? You might want to check out Jimmy Akin’s article, “The Key to Understanding Mary”. If you read it through the lens of sympathetic criticism, then, even though you may disagree with his conclusions, you might find that Catholics aren’t as crazy as they seem.

 

[puzzleannie]

ten men are running through the forest toward a deep pit, hidden by brush. As each one of the first 9 runs headlong into the trap he falls into the pit. A strong man stands at the edge of the pit and rescues each one who falls. The strong man grasps the 10th man before he falls into the pit. The first 9 still show the ill effects of their fall, but are healing, the 10th has no ill effects because he never fell. All 10 are now on solid ground, all ten have been saved, all ten thank their rescuer and acknowledge they owe their present condition of health and safety to his efforts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

redeemed1:

Well I guess you will have to continue in your man made teachings, but frankly I believe God and take His Word as truth.

Psalms 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

And who do you think chose those particular documents to be part of the Bible?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

jimmy:

I was reading The Summa on line and I saw a thing that was a summary of Thomas’ beliefs on the Immaculate Conception. I was wondering whether this would be orthodox.

I saw this on the ccel site. What do you think? Is it acceptable in Catholicism now? Did Mary contract the debt?

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP027.html

This is Exactly what the church teaches…Mary was redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice. It was simply more perfect, but it was a redemption just the same. Hence Gabriel’s greeting, "Hail FULL OF GRACE…

 

[redeemed1]

And who do you think chose those particular documents to be part of the Bible?

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So I believe if the Holy Spirit moved men to write the Scriptures He also preserved them and just like the inspiration to write, the inspiration to preserve.

The Catholic Church claims exclusive (private) interpretation so according to the above verse they are in error.

And no the Catholic Church did not give us the Scriptures, the canon was set before there ever was a Roman Catholic Church.

Intersting, very interesting…

 

[vern_humphrey]

redeemed1:

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So I believe if the Holy Spirit moved men to write the Scriptures He also preserved them and just like the inspiration to write, the inspiration to preserve.

So how do you explain the fact that we have ancient manuscripts with slightly differing versions of various books of the Bible?

How do you explain that there are books mentioned or quoted in the Bible which are NOT in the current Bible (for example, Jude 1,14-15 quotes from the Book of Enoch) ?

redeemed1:

The Catholic Church claims exclusive (private) interpretation so according to the above verse they are in error.

Quite the contrary – the quoted verse asserts that private interpretation is not admissible. The Church’s interpretation is in no way private, but public and authoritative.

redeemed1:

And no the Catholic Church did not give us the Scriptures, the canon was set before there ever was a Roman Catholic Church.

Then who did? The Catholic Church can document its existance right back to the Apostles. The men who complied the Canon of the New Testament were all Catholics. The Pope who proclaimed (Damasus I) both the Canons was a Catholic.

Now, do you have an ancient cite – a primary source – that shows someone OTHER than the Catholic Church formed and proclaimed the Canon?

 

[RSiscoe]

jimmy:

I was reading The Summa on line and I saw a thing that was a summary of Thomas’ beliefs on the Immaculate Conception. I was wondering whether this would be orthodox.

I saw this on the ccel site. What do you think? Is it acceptable in Catholicism now? Did Mary contract the debt?

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP027.html

St. Thomas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception the way it was later defined. He beleived that Mary was originally conceived in sin, then imediately purified from sin.

However, at that time the doctrine had not been defined, and thus theologians were free to speculate on the matter. St. Thomas was refuted by another theologian of his time, who answered all of St. Thomas’ objections to the immaculate conception.

We are fortunate today in that we know the truth, since the Church has defined the dogma. Before a dogma is defined, theologians are allowed to speculate. However, after the matter is settled, all speculation ceases, and the Catholic intellect submits. After all, why would anyone continue to speculate after the truth has been revealed?

 

[Immaculata]

jimmy:

I was reading The Summa on line and I saw a thing that was a summary of Thomas’ beliefs on the Immaculate Conception. I was wondering whether this would be orthodox.

I saw this on the ccel site. What do you think? Is it acceptable in Catholicism now? Did Mary contract the debt?

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP027.html

Mary is indebted to Jesus, just as the rest of us, for her Salvation. Salvation wasn’t merited by Mary. It was the fullness of grace paid for by her Son, for which we are all eternally grateful.

 

[redeemed1]

Immaculata:

Mary is indebted to Jesus, just as the rest of us, for her Salvation. Salvation wasn’t merited by Mary. It was the fullness of grace paid for by her Son, for which we are all eternally grateful.

So why do you worship her. If you don’t think the rcc’s worship this person, then please explain to me the phenomena manifested here:

christiananswers.net/catalog/messages-vs.html

Now tell me what people are doing? I can tell you, she is not our salvation, and she is not a part of our salvation in any way. The manifestations you or any one else is experiencing concerning this person is demonic and nothing more.

 

[vern_humphrey]

redeemed1:

So why do you worship her. If you don’t think the rcc’s worship this person, then please explain to me the phenomena manifested here:.

Fail to distinguish different orders of reverence and respect. Let me explain it like this – at a parade a color guard passes, with the colors uncased. What do you do?

You stand at attention, placing your hand or hat (if you’re wearing one) over your heart.

Is this “worshiping” the flag? No – it’s simply showing respect for the beloved symbol of our country.

You are introduced to the President. Do you call him “George,” or do you call him “Mister President?”

You call him “Mister President.” Is that worshiping him? No – it’s simply showing appropriate respect to the man and his office.

We do not “worship” Mary as we do God. We do respect and reverence her, and we believe that she has a special brief for us, as the Mother of Christ.

christiananswers.net/catalog/messages-vs.html

Now tell me what people are doing? I can tell you, she is not our salvation, and she is not a part of our salvation in any way. The manifestations you or any one else is experiencing concerning this person is demonic and nothing more.

Do you see a nihil obstat or imprimatur on that site?

This isn’t a Catholic website, it’s an anti-Catholic website. if you want to know what we truly believe, I think we can cay we are the authority on that, not someone who opposes us.

Now, there ARE people who handle snakes, bark the devil up the tent pole, and do all sorts of other things – but that isn’t a part of Catholicism.

 

[jimmy]

redeemed1:

So why do you worship her. If you don’t think the rcc’s worship this person, then please explain to me the phenomena manifested here:

christiananswers.net/catalog/messages-vs.html

Now tell me what people are doing? I can tell you, she is not our salvation, and she is not a part of our salvation in any way. The manifestations you or any one else is experiencing concerning this person is demonic and nothing more.

Read the KJV bible. Why did Jesus condone worshiping of fellow people when he told the story of the man who went to the banquit and where he should sit.

 

[RobbyS]

vern humphrey:

Fail to distinguish different orders of reverence and respect. Let me explain it like this – at a parade a color guard passes, with the colors uncased. What do you do?

You stand at attention, placing your hand or hat (if you’re wearing one) over your heart.

Is this “worshiping” the flag? No – it’s simply showing respect for the beloved symbol of our country.

You are introduced to the President. Do you call him “George,” or do you call him “Mister President?”

You call him “Mister President.” Is that worshiping him? No – it’s simply showing appropriate respect to the man and his office.

We do not “worship” Mary as we do God. We do respect and reverence her, and we believe that she has a special brief for us, as the Mother of Christ.

Do you see a nihil obstat or imprimatur on that site?

This isn’t a Catholic website, it’s an anti-Catholic website. if you want to know what we truly believe, I think we can cay we are the authority on that, not someone who opposes us.

Now, there ARE people who handle snakes, bark the devil up the tent pole, and do all sorts of other things – but that isn’t a part of Catholicism.

If some Catholics do–wrongly–treat Mary like a goddess, then noncatholics commit the opposite offense, which is to dismiss her entirely. If we only had the Gospel of Mark then one could say that she plays no role besides giving him birth. But how can one read what is said in Matthew and Luke–especially the latter–and not see that she was not only his mother but was well aware who HE was. She was the first Christian and her spouse Joseph was the second. In the light of the Nativity story, the barest mention of Mary in Acts takes on enormous significance, a hint of the great role that the Church has always assigned to her.

 

[Church_Militant]

redeemed1:

So why do you worship her. If you don’t think the rcc’s worship this person, then please explain to me the phenomena manifested here:

christiananswers.net/catalog/messages-vs.html

Now tell me what people are doing? I can tell you, she is not our salvation, and she is not a part of our salvation in any way. The manifestations you or any one else is experiencing concerning this person is demonic and nothing more.

You must selectively read the Gospels Redeemed1, because I can see it all right there in Mary’s discussion w/the angel Gabriel. We repeat the very words he used, was he worshipping Mary? You believe something that you have been told in error about Catholics. Mary even says to Elizabeth (in what we call her Magnificat) “I rejoice in God my savior”. She goes on to prophecy by the Holy Spirit that “all generations will call me blessed”, so…is that wrong too? Realize that Gabriel greets Mary with “Hail full of grace” and she’s the only soul in all the world ever to have that said to her. I believe that that is an allusion (not an illusion ) to the uniqueness of her salvation. Why couldn’t the sacrifice of Christ be applied to her at her conception because of her unique destiny as the mother of God (something that all 3 “pillars of the Reformation” firmly said they believed in!) since St. John clearly states that Jesus was “the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world”? If that is so then it can easily be applied to any soul down through history, even to the end of the world. If not then NO ONE is saved! Mary’s salvation was simply applied more perfectly than mine & yours (something that only God could do). Consider how pure the Ark of the Covenant was…then consider that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant in that she carried Jesus, the New Covenant, within her very body. She knew… and believed (again I refer you to Elizabeth’s Holy Spirit filled greeting to Mary. “Blessed is she who believe that the Lord will do as he has promised”. How can we doubt what is clearly stated in the NT?

You really should actually read what we really DO believe as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church before you come in here and go off on us like that.

Mary’s actual role in Christianity is far more beautiful and profound than you realize. If Jesus is the Messiah that makes him the King of Israel and the King of kings, right? Well who were the queens of Israel beginning w/ Solomon and what was their function? It’s in your Bible; big as life. Look up the Hebrew word “Giberah” and then follow out just who she was and what she did?