Author Topic: The Paradox of the Immaculate Conception(s)  (Read 2124 times)

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2104
  • Thanked: 1467 times
  • Religion: Creed-affirming, sacramental, Yahweh-worshipping Christian Gnostic
Re: The Paradox of the Immaculate Conception(s)
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2018, 05:35:17 PM »

1. Why did the Virgin Mary need to be conceived without Original Sin? If it was required that Christ needed a mother without Original Sin in order to remain clean of Original Sin, wouldn't it necessitate that Saint Anna would remain clean of Original Sin for the Theotokos, etc. to Eve? And if God can arbitrarily choose people to be born without Original Sin, why did Christ need to redeem us?

This one is a straw man and non-argument. Rome does not claim that Christ needed a mother with no original sin in order to be conceived spotless Himself, , so the regression all the way to Eve is an irrelevant contrivance, and something doesn't need to be necessary in order for it to be right or in order for God to do it.

Finally, the last point betrays an ignorance of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception: Mary was conceived without stain of original sin through the merits of Christ's sacrifice being applied to her retroactively in time. Furthermore, both Adam and Eve were made without sin, and they fell and needed redemption, so the last point is in any case moot.

Quote
2. How could Christ redeem us? Christ came to redeem us not only from the Original Sin, but also from all our sins. How could Christ redeem our fallen human nature when - if logic follows - Christ Himself did not have our fallen human nature? Wasn't the whole idea of Christ being a "sacrificial lamb" originally from the Jewish idea of "scapegoating" and being a Sacrifice for the forgiveness of Sin? And also suffering and facing death on behalf of the human race, with the punishment of sin being death (when Christ is distinct from human)?

I'm struggling to see a logical structure in this that would constitute an argument.

Christ redeemed our human nature - period - from its fallen STATE (this is one of your misunderstandings - thinking there are twof natures called "human" - fallen and not-fallen). Why would Christ's human nature itself need to be in a fallen state in order to redeem our human nature from its fallen state? And how indeed does this follow from the concept of scapegoating? The fact of scapegoating, if anything, undermines any possibility of such an inference being that the scapegoat of the Old Testament was itself was not in any way human, yet throuhg sacrificing it sins could be remitted.

Why don't you tell us how an imperfect natural being - imperfect quite apart from any actual sin (you yourself admit that humans are corrupt due to Adam's sin quite apart from their personal sins) - can by itself merit supernatural perfection. Of course we need saving not just from our personal sins but also from our inherited corruption due to Adam: we ALL need to be REBORN - John 3:6. Denial that original sin alone necessitates a redemption to be applied through baptism in order to enter Heaven is a denial that original sin alone damns, and that's just a denial of John 3:6 which states that there is no salvation without rebirth of water and spirit.

Quote
3. There seemed to be a drastic change in Tradition for the Roman church when it comes to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary - in that the tradition of her dying and being resurrected by Christ has been replaced with her not facing a physical death at all (we can see remnants of the former in Santa Maria Maggiore) - the idea of the fact that being Immaculately conceived, she couldn't face a physical death. If this is the case, how could Christ have died at all?

Where has that been "replaced"? Can you point me to Papal encyclicals? A council? Liturgical changes? Any formal magisterial teaching? I have no desire to defend such a position because I don't believe it, nor do I believe that there has been any "drastic change" in what the Church teaches - but you may have a very different understanding from me about how to gauge what the Church teaches, indeed, what the Catholic faith is. I for one, in the absence of any central authority to promulgate true councils, speak ex cathedra, or serve as the point by which we can measure schism, can't make head or tail of how the Orthodox rigorously define the the "Orthodox faith" (for instance, what happens when two Orthodox patriarchs are in a dispute and excommunicate one another? Who is right? Where is the Church? That even goes right back to the schism itself: why see the true church in the side which has no purported infallible central authority and hasn't defined a dogma in over a thousand years (as if the need had never arisen - but then again they know they can't call a a valid general ecumenical council without the Roman Church and Pope) versus the one under the successor of Peter who at least claims for himself primacy and infallibility?) - not arguing, just musing aloud.


 

Offline Santantonio

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 470
  • Thanked: 314 times
Re: The Paradox of the Immaculate Conception(s)
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2021, 10:25:23 AM »
Recently, I watched a debate between the Orthodox Fr. Ramsey and Roman Catholic apologist William Albrecht, it is on William's channel and on Pints With Aquinas. The Orthodox seem to place too much emphasis on Original Sin as being something that cannot be interfered with or altered by God in time, as if God is not God. It is a bankrupt view. Here is my response, making a point that William did not, which I drew to his attention:

William, there is an insight which both yourself and Fr. Ramsey overlooked in this debate which thoroughly disproves the Orthodox position as Fr. Ramsey declared it, that OS is the first cause of death. According to Genesis 3, it was only after Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, and refused to eat of the Tree of Life, that death began to corrupt them. God declares his response to OS in Genesis 3:14-19, then God acts to accomplish these curses in Genesis 3:20-24, and says: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." -- As a creature in this space and time, banished from Eden, appointed to be sinless but suffer in this valley of tears, the BVM was banned from Eden and could not partake of the ToL, the same is true for Enoch and Elijah, who would have died had the Lord not taken them. Thusly, the BVM might be totally without Original Sin, yet die without the Tree of Life. The more perfect nature of her "death" or "dormition" is best understood in the context of union and sympathy with Her Son and Saviour, who also was incarnated in this world, and whose resurrected body was "born again" (John 3:3), as the Shroud of Turn evidences. To be "born again" speaks of this transition into the next life, not of any personal confession of faith or act of God upon the living man, as the Evangelicals misunderstand its meaning. He meant death occurs because we are not in Eden, do not partake of the ToL, and the restoration of all things will not make this unnecessary until the complete fulfillment of all prophecy, in the Parousia. Let us consider what it means to be "born", and "first-born" to Mary: from St. Alphonsus de Liguori, an historical context: "For whether she be the first-born inasmuch as she was predestined in the divine decrees, together with the Son, before all creatures, according to the Scotists, or the first-born of grace as the predestined Mother of the Redeemer, after the prevision of sin, according to the Thomists; nevertheless all agree in calling her the first-born of God" (Glories of Mary, II.I.) and St. Theophanius of Nice, who proclaimed, " Hail, thou who hast taken away Eve's sorrow!" (Nova Eva, Mater vitae). Adam, Eve, Christ - NONE were born as men are born, but MARY WAS. Thus, it was simultaneous with the natural act of her conception that she was preserved from the stain of OS, and not after, but rather by the instantaneous indwelling of the Holy Ghost, she was made to grow physically from her onset as "a fit habitation for Christ, but because of her original grace", and  "sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit" (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). One last consideration, the Lord Himself, not being BORN (BVM), and not being CREATED (Adam, Eve), would not ever have died had it not been His Will to Save Us at that hour, because it would not be necessary for Him to partake of the Tree of Life, which He created. The evil angels, either, they do not have to partake, the Fallen Ones - yet they live still, full of sin. It is Mary's presence in the banished world, a necessary need, that made it she did not live here forever, it was not due to any Original Sin whatsoever, and the nature of her passing transpired in a way that made her in perfect union with Christ Himself, both by the Mercy of God given to us.
 
The following users thanked this post: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez