Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, ok, Conrau, even if we allow that one has used partial quotations to cite what is expedient to ones argument, the intent was to assert not that priests never preach the trinity as you have suggested, merely that there may have been some reservations in doing so. Never the less, it is a separate argument.
If you wish to contest the quotation ...[text shortened]... flesh of the son of god being formed from the flesh of somebody who is tainted by original sin?
If you wish to contest the quotation from the New Catholic encyclopaedia, well, be my guest, however, it still, does not answer, why Mary should be viewed as a special case and why this thing is so important to Catholics. i myself would be interested in finding out why.
I do contest it. There is a huge difference between preaching the Thomistic understanding of the Trinity and preaching the Trinity simply. Likewise, a similar distortion could have happened in this quotation. The Catholic Church teaches that doctrine has its basis in Scripture and then derivatively from the Church Fathers. If neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers taught the Immaculate Conception, even implicitly, then the infallible declaration would be an abuse.
As for this latter statement, it is not wholly applicable, for we are referring not to sin, as the resultant effect of some misdemeanour, but as the natural consequence of inherited imperfection. Christ is excluded because he was not a descendent of Adam, however, all others are, including his natural mother, as the lineage in scripture clearly indicates. To try to assert that it was Pauls intent merely to apply it to his immediate audience i find quite incredulous, given the content of the actual text, nor do i think it can be construed as such, for Paul is clearly speaking of all persons from Adams descent, not merely the Roman christians.
The point, however, is that Mary did not inherit this imperfection. That is exactly what the Immaculate Conception means. She obeyed the Law not because she feared for her soul but because she loved her God. Being the mother of the Messiah, she had an even greater reason to follow the Law. She had been specially chosen out of all Jewish women to bear and raise the saviour of all of Israel. She had a special reason to follow the Law. In a similar way, Jesus too had to follow the Law. He was circumcised, purified in the temple, and offered sacrifices. He celebrated the passover as prescribed by the Law. Neither Mary nor Jesus did this, however, because they feared for their salvation.
Yes, I think there are logical limits to Paul's 'all' (kind of hypocritical given the way when the Scripture says 'Through Christ all things were made' or 'All the angels worshiped him', you are quite willing to change the meaning to 'all other'😉. It is true that children inherit the imperfection, as St Paul explains; it is not true to say that children have sinned. An infant cannot be called a sinner and should the infant die, we would not call the infant an unrepentant sinenr. There are limits to St. Paul's 'all'.
never the less, its a religious belief, and even if i myself feel that it is unsubstantiated in scripture, I, like the original poster, would like to know why it is important to Catholics. Is it an attempt to address the issue so eloquently put by Lord shark, the unease with the incongruity of the flesh of the son of god being formed from the flesh of somebody who is tainted by original sin?
That is one reason albeit not a good one. In Catholic and Orthodox churches, anything that touches the precious body or blood in the Eucharistic rite must be gold, or sometimes glass, and be blessed. Generally it is to be reserved only for the priest. Because we believe that Christ in the bread and wine is truly present, we are careful of desecration. For the same reason, it is also wrong to receive the body or blood in a state of mortal sin, which as St. Paul explains (1Cor 11), would be sacrilegious. So too with Mary, the bearer of Christ incarnate, some Catholics argue that she must have been pure.
This is not the sole reason or even a good reason. Christ proved very willing to mix with sinners. Catholics believe she was without sin primarily because of her privileged position in history. In the Scriptures, she is 'full of grace' and Elizabeth literally says 'rich in grace'. Throughout history, Christians have often described her as a spiritual mother of the church, even a co-redemptrix. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is part of this tradition.