Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The ability to be tempted is not sin, and neither does the ability to use of free will to resist temptation mean one has a sinful nature.  Heck, even concupiscence is not sin (not that Jesus or Mary or Adam and Eve [when first created] had concupiscence). I think you're grasping at straws.  Your "lack of free will" argument against the IC really is full of holes.

Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
These are not red herrings.  This goes to the very heart of the topic. It was you who claimed that lack of concupisence means a person loses the "enjoyment" of the full use of one's free will.  So this either means that Jesus was NOT fully human and could not relate to us fully,
You are being quarrelsome and that is causing you to forget basic theology.

Jesus Christ was like us in all things *except* sin.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Mardukm said:
I really don't think you understand what concupiscence is.  
As anticipated, you resort to the typical Catholic polemical ploy to denigrate the intelligence of those who do not agree with you.  It becomes very wearisome.   :(

Concupiscence is NOT the free will to sin
Congratulations.  That is corect.

(which appears to be your definition since you define NOT having concupisence as the state of NOT having the free will to sin).
No cigar.  You got that wrong.  I've noticed that you try and guess what your partners in dialogue are thinking and you are often wrong.    Presumption of this nature is deadly to ecumenical dialogue.

Concupiscence is the disordered attraction to things and acts which are in fact detrimental to us.   Our fallen sinful nature may make them appear attractive at the time but they are in fact destructive of spiritual life and harmful to salvation.

 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
I really don't think you understand what concupiscence is.  
As anticipated, you resort to the typical Catholic polemical ploy to denigrate the intelligence of those who do not agree with you.  It becomes very wearisome.   :(
Apparently you think this gives you license to use the same argument (as you did earlier with Papist). ::)  And I've noticed too that the "red herring" argument is often used when non-Catholic polemicists can't respond.

(which appears to be your definition since you define NOT having concupisence as the state of NOT having the free will to sin).
No cigar.  You got that wrong.  I've noticed that you try and guess what your partners in dialogue are thinking and you are often wrong.    Presumption of this nature is deadly to ecumenical dialogue.
That's why I used the word "appears" instead of "is" - because I was not sure and was hoping to get a straight answer from you. What was that you said about presumption?

Concupiscence is the disordered attraction to things and acts which are in fact detrimental to us.   Our fallen sinful nature may make them appear attractive at the time but they are in fact destructive of spiritual life and harmful to salvation.
Very good.  And as the example of Adam and Eve demonstrates, lack of concupiscence does not equate to not being able to be tempted or deceived into sin.  Despite the lack of concupiscence, one still needs the active use of free will to be able to resist temptation.

Humbly,
Marduk
 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dan-Romania said:
Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?
I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.

This basically and simply means that she received what we receive at Baptism, but only at an earlier time, even earlier than St. John the Baptist (who is traditionally believed to have been sanctified when Mary met Elizabeth). Whatever you think we receive at Baptism is the same thing that the Theotokos received, except at the moment of her conception.

Since it was at the moment of her conception, it also means that the Grace (that we normally receive at Baptism) was preventive, instead of ameliorative.  This means she had no spiritual stain, including the stain of concupiscence. However, all the physical consequences still remained (death, infirmity, sickness, sorrow, etc) - just like us when we receive baptism.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers only to her spiritual being, not her physical being.  It is, aside from concupiscence, exactly like what we experience spiritually at Baptism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

Mardukm

Elder
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
423
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
the lack of concupisence does not mean that one loses the free will not to sin.
Is that Catholic gobbledygook?  :laugh:
When one uses double and triple negatives - yeah, it can look like that. :laugh:
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
LBK said:
... but if Mary indeed had free will to obey or disobey (a view which is completely compatible with Orthodox belief), then what is the point of her being immaculately conceived? It is one thing for her to have been purified by the Holy Spirit through her conception of the Son of God (as the Orthodox canon at Matins for the Annunciation proclaims), and quite another in herself being "immaculately conceived". To an Orthodox, it don't add up.
The point is that she is the Holy Ark of the Covenant made of the "purest" and "finest" of material just as the true Ark. To a Catholic, the rejection of the Immacaulate Conception just doesn't add up.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dan-Romania said:
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
And none of what you have said has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception. You don't even know what the IC is. It was the fact that Mary, who was concieved by Anne and Joachim, did not inherit original sin.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
This tread is in response to a post where a member suggested that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception leads to the denial of one's Free will. I believe this to be false. First, the IC means that Mary was not born the fallen state of original sin..
Here is my limited understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology on this matter.

Firstly, you are not correct in saying that the IC means the Mother of God was "not born the fallen state of original sin."  The true teaching is that she was not *conceived* in the fallen state of original sin.   I am surprised that you do not know that.  The very name should give you a clue - it is the Immaculate Conception and not the Immaculate Birth.

The consequence of this conception without original sin is that the Mother of God lacked some of the important aspects of free will.  These are aspects which the rest of humanity "enjoys."

Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.

I humbly implore your pardon for presuming to raise my voice on Roman Catholic theology but when I saw your inaccurate understanding of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was born immaculately instead of being conceived immaculately) I knew that I had to make a small contribution. 
I meant concieved. I must have typed this out too quickly but I think you know that I know that Mary was preserved whole and entirely from Original Sin from the moment of her Conception.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
Irish Hermit said:
Because she did not inherit original sin she did not have the "stains" of original sin.  A major one of these stains is concupiscnece.  Without concuspicience it is impossible to exercise your free will and choose to sin.

So she was able to have free will to make such a decision in the morning - today I am going to go into town, or today I am going to stay home and do my embroidery.

But she did not have such free will as - I am going to steal that apple on the neighbour's tree or, I am going to swear at the dog if he bites me again.

So in this very significant way, becaue of the lack of concupiscence, she lacked free will.
I used to believe this rationale when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome.  But better minds than me convinced me of the illogical and unpatristic notion that concupisence is necessary for free will to have effect.  If I really believed this, then I would have to admit that Adam and Eve did not have free will.  I would also have to admit that Jesus Christ did not have free will, which would not make him fully human.  Pondering such heterodox consequences was enough to set my mind on the right track.
As with Papist you have an inaccurate understanding of the complexities of Roman Catholic theology.   The absence of concupiscence (the result of the absence of original sin) in the Mother of God does not mean the elimination of *all* of her free will; I thought I had made that clear.   It means the absence of free will to sin.  Free will to sin can only be driven by concuspiscence and nothing else. She actually had no inner faculty which brought her free will into action with regard to choosing sin.

So the Mother of God had less free will than the ordinary human.
Ah, so what we really have going on here is that you don't understand Catholic theolgoy because you believe that the lack of concuspisence takes away Mary's ability to sin. I can provide two examples that prove that this premise is false: Adam and Eve. Neither were created with concupiscence but both freely chose to sin. The lack of concupisence in a person does not take away that person's ability to sin. Rather, it just means that they do not have the same attachment and drive to sin that you and I have. Thus, when Adam and Eve sinned it was so much graver because their wills were much more free than ours.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
So you believe Jesus had less free will than any other human being also?

Do you also believe that Adam and Eve had less free will than any other human being?  If so, how did they sin?
Because you cannot answer the objections to the Immaculate Conception you are starting to throw red herrings into the discussion.   Please do not take this thread off topic.  Deal with the topic - "Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception."
He is not getting off topic. He is providing two examples that destroy the foundation of your arguement.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
These are not red herrings.  This goes to the very heart of the topic. It was you who claimed that lack of concupisence means a person loses the "enjoyment" of the full use of one's free will.  So this either means that Jesus was NOT fully human and could not relate to us fully,
You are being quarrelsome and that is causing you to forget basic theology.

Jesus Christ was like us in all things *except* sin.
So you think that an intrinsic part of any human person is the desire to sin and the enjoyment of evil actions? WOW. You should become a Manichean because apparently you think that it is intrinsic to the human person to be evil. A Good God would not create such evil in us. So you going to joing the gnostics in general or the Manicheans in particular?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Mardukm said:
the lack of concupisence does not mean that one loses the free will not to sin.
Is that Catholic gobbledygook?  :laugh:
And down the rabbit hole again. We have again arrived at either Fr. Ambrose being dishonest in his presentation of Catholic theology in order to assault it or Fr. Ambrose demonstrating this ignorance or lack of understanding of Catholic Theology. After things have been so clearly presented to him in this thread, and I am sure many times in his life, it is really straining Charity to assume that its ignorance and lack of understanding at this point. Fr. I ask you, please stop trying to misunderstand and misrepresent our Faith. It is extremely disrespectful. No one is expecting you to accept the IC; however, in the name of Christian Charity and sincerity, I ask you to stop creating these staw men.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
Dan-Romania said:
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
And none of what you have said has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception. You don't even know what the IC is. It was the fact that Mary, who was concieved by Anne and Joachim, did not inherit original sin.
Exactly what i believed .. anyways maybe you would like to explain us how this occured =)) . Let`s not make Mariolatry here .
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dan-Romania said:
Papist said:
Dan-Romania said:
Mary was born from Joachim and Ana . From men seed , not from God . The immaculated conception is an deviation from the true . Mary did not exist with the creation , She is not at the same level with Holy Spirit , she is not Quatriny or how is it called . The IC is an heresy , sorry for being so harsh .
And none of what you have said has anything to do with the Immaculate Conception. You don't even know what the IC is. It was the fact that Mary, who was concieved by Anne and Joachim, did not inherit original sin.
Exactly what i believed .. anyways maybe you would like to explain us how this occured =)) . Let`s not make Mariolatry here .
First, If that's exactly what you believe then you believe in the Immaculate Conception. Second, how is God granting grace to Mary Mariolatry? What a silly arguement.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That is exactly what i taught IC is , and it is an heresy , you can`t prove it elsewhere . It was not a dogma of the Seven Councils , it was added by RCC , and became an dogma of RCC somewere in 19th century afaik . Let`s be serious the RCC has departed from the faith of Peter wich confessed  Jesus Christ and true faith . The rock on wich the Church was build .
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dan-Romania said:
That is exactly what i taught IC is , and it is an heresy , you can`t prove it elsewhere . It was not a dogma of the Seven Councils , it was added by RCC , and became an dogma of RCC somewere in 19th century afaik . Let`s be serious the RCC has departed from the faith of Peter wich confessed  Jesus Christ and true faith . The rock on wich the Church was build .
Let's be serious. You making a silly arguement.
If she really is the "All holy", "Immaculate", "All pure" then the Immaculate concpetion makes much more sense than its rejection.
 

basilthefool

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
61
Wow! This thread really lends itself to the ad hominen, eh? It does seem to the uninformed follower of all this that both sides are missing the mark on the opposition's arguments. I haven't seen so many knees jerking since lightning hit the football bleachers.

I had always thought that the main objection to immaculate conception was that it was proclaimed as a dogma necessary for salvation and that the Orthodox that it wasn't an essential belief and should not have been proclaimed unilaterally.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
basilthefool said:
Wow! This thread really lends itself to the ad hominen, eh? It does seem to the uninformed follower of all this that both sides are missing the mark on the opposition's arguments. I haven't seen so many knees jerking since lightning hit the football bleachers.
Haven't missed his point. Its just not a good point.
basilthefool said:
I had always thought that the main objection to immaculate conception was that it was proclaimed as a dogma necessary for salvation and that the Orthodox that it wasn't an essential belief and should not have been proclaimed unilaterally.
This is the best arguement that I ever hear against the IC. However, it doesn't touch on whether or not the IC is true. It only addresses whether or not it was prudent to make it dogma.
 
Top