as many Catholics have said, it is not of necessity that she be “immaculate”.
As far as Catholic doctrine goes, it is necessary that Catholics believe that she is immaculate.
“Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.”
I would think both Catholics and Protestants believe God could preserve her from sin, so at least we can agree on that. God is all-powerful, and nothing in Scripture contradicts her being immaculate. She certainly didn’t sin in scripture, while nearly all Christ’s disciples did.
Oh, I’m not argue against that, but in most of the history of the Church, people were not bound to hold to it. I’m arguing against dogmatic definition of it in 1854, binding the faith of the believer. I think it just as reasonable, scripturally sound, the hold that she was filled with grace, her soul freed from the stain of sin, and the visitation, at the very words spoken by the angel. That view does not do damage to the Incarnation, either.
My dear friend inn Christ;
I HAVE heard this sad story before; when I was quite active in the Parish religion education prograsmS
Your age group DOES seem to be missed in many if not most parish programs. One assumes this may be because there simply are not young people to endeavor to establish a program for your age group.
Here is what I suggest:
Be a LEADER; talk to your parish’s DRE [Director of religious education] and suggest you take an active role in a program for folks in your age group. It mat begin slowly; but stick with it and “demand” that the program appear often or regularly in the parish Bulletin.
YOU reach out to your friends and try to get them involved. Here my friend is an opportunity for YOU to make a difference.
I see what you are saying, but then it comes down to obeying the authority of the Church. And that comes down to whether Christ gave his Church the authority and power to decide these matters without error.
All we have is just our reason and hopefully some share in the Holy Spirit, but not the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit ourselves to decide such a doctrine.
Do you believe in the Church’s authority?
Of course I believe in the teaching authority of the Church. I just don’t think it is entirely vested in the Bishop of Rome.
Which Bishop do you suppose it to reside in then?
The early Church used the councils, but I don’t want to derail the thread
Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I have thought of perhaps trying this before. I’m not sure what I would start though. At a minimum I do wish there was a Bible study for those my age. If we’re being honest, I am only friends with one person who attends my local parish so there’s not much of a start there. I am also not well versed in the faith so I worry I lack the adequate knowledge to lead a Bible study, though this may just be fear and/or lies getting in the way. I will consider this though, especially if I can start regularly attending mass again!
Okay, I see that, the Church continues to use councils, and all the Bishops agree with the immaculate conception.
Not all of them. The bishops are still divided, East and West. Until that Schism is resolved , the authority of the Church is not unified
Agree that the doctrine is a “necessity”, just that the doctrine does not state her immaculateness due to necessity.
Agree God can do anything as it relates, but as a forefather once wrote, “just because God can does not mean that He did” ( forgot the context).
As far as contradiction goes, , that is matter of opinion. Tough to hold up contradictions when one allows exceptions, as St Augustine mentions (“all have sinned” , but now with the exception of Mary).
Nothing contradicts the opposing view either, and a few folk in scripture have no mention of sin (Joseph, Lazarus and his sister Mary etc., etc.)
We differ in our interpretations of “full of grace” just as we do on Mary being with those who wanted to bring Jesus home to “rest” when he was at Capernum, the brethren /group she was with thinking Jesus was going off the deep end.
Some surely are, but the eastern Church is smaller and divided among themselves too. There are many Eastern Bishops which are in agreement with the West. The good thing about the idea that Christ vested authority in one particular bishop, Peter, is that it doesn’t matter so much if there is some minimal dissent.
Okay, but who is the all is the question, because all could include Jesus and the Angels, and surely that cannot be.
True, absence of mention of sin does not mean they were free of sin. We must simply rely on Christ imbuing His Church with the right teaching on this matter. Because “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” and it will be lead into “all truth”.
I’m not sure how you connect Mary with those thinking he was going off the deep end. How do you figure?
That she died is correct. Mary did not rise again. She was assumed into heaven.iow taken up flesh and soul.
Except that this idea is not extant in scripture, and only a practice of primacy in the early Church.
Jon MY FRIEND;
WHY do YOU suppose that this DOGMA was not defined before this?
It WAS because there WAS NO actual need to; it was widely accepted.
Dogmas become DOGMA after a LONG period of being DOCTRINE; and it is most often when a Doctrine is being seriously challenged that with investigation and HS support and guidence that it becomes DEFINE INfallible Dogma.
God Bless you my frien Jon
These notions are close to idolatry. The word of God is clear that Jesus Christ is our mediator making intercession for the Church, not the CC’s decreed Mary.
This belief requires repentance from the CC, to God for such a deviation from the word of God.
JonNC… the Holy Spirit said that Peter held the office of Apostle not bishop. Why give him such a demotion? Repentance is needed to all who hold such a deviation from the word of God.
as far as the “all’’ , I was going to interject except for Christ , but was hoping it was not necessary, for Writ is specific enough, even by the same author, that Christ was sinless…it would also make it nonsensical for paul to say we are then made righteous by a sinner as Christ (in the verse that follows all are sinners”), not too mention how could God (Jesus) be short of His own glory ?
No, the best response (Catholic) to this is that Mary was simply made righteous by the same Christ that we are, just that it was done at inception. One reason that it was not necessary (IC) is that then “untainted” Mary was conceived in a tainted body , that is, her mother.
yes, we rely on church teachings, just that I would not consider the IC a foundational teaching, and that only until recently , one could believe the opposite and still honor Mary , and the church, and be in good standing.
As far as the latter. Mark tells us that His ministry grew, so much so that the crowd wouldn’t let Him eat. His friends were concerned (though they did not “believe”), and later we see the brethren (who also did not believe) with Mary (who believed and pondered) who "desired’’ to see him. I don’t think they desired insight to his parables, but perhaps were concerned for him physically (not eating would worry any good mother ?). Unlike Cana, no info is given on any acquiescing, save a teaching moment as to reality of a spiritual family/relations. While worrying can be a sin, i would more suredly say this episode simply makes Mary so much more like all of us in our growing in understanding , our need to “ponder” just whom Jesus is.