Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch
From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Religious question
Message-ID: <1531@shark.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 20:29:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.1531
Posted: Fri Sep 13 20:29:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 12:22:36 EDT
References: <144@graffiti.UUCP> <57@bbncc5.UUCP> <811@aluxe.UUCP> <1480@hammer.UUCP>
Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 56
Summary: 

In article <1480@hammer.UUCP> seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) writes:
>In article <811@aluxe.UUCP> bobhic@aluxe.UUCP (ADOLT) writes:
>
>>"Immaculate Conception" doctrine refers to the conception of
>>Mary, not Jesus.  Made an article of faith by Pope Pius IX
>>in 1854, it holds that "the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the
>>first instant of her conception, was, by a most singular
>>grace and privilege of Almighty God...preserved from all
>>stain of Original Sin."
>
>How did the Pope come to this conclusion?  Also, it seems to
>be implied that Mary didn't commit any sins, otherwise she
>would be stained with sin anyway. (yes? no?)  If so, it then
>seems that she could have provided the sacrifice of someone
>who was without sin just as well as Jesus could.  (Or was
>the sacrificial person required to be male?)

Pius IX came to this conclusion because by this time it was firmly
established in the tradition of the Catholic church.  The idea was
that one could inherit "stain" from either parent, and therefore it
was necessary to keep Mary, and in some versions, her entire female
progeniture, free of sin so she could not pass this on.

The sacrifice of one human without sin would presumably save one
human WITH sin.  However, Jesus was not merely human.  In any case
Mary was not chosen for the task, obviously.

Incidentally, I find the doctrine of Immaculate Conception to be
utterly unnecessary.  Mary, through her entire life, was a practicing,
sacrificing Jew, and her observance of the Covenant and concommitant
trust in the efficacy of the sacrifices held at the Temple would have
been sufficient to keep her ritually pure for the necessary period.

Part of the problem comes in the connection between "sin" and the
concept of ritual purity.  Apparently it was sufficient in the eyes
of G-d that one be ritually pure, to "handle" Holy things.
(Please correct me if I am mistaken in the following analysis.)
One could become ritually unclean by breaking the Law, or by touching
the wrong things.  As far as I can tell, Mary did neither thing, until
she gave birth; I seem to recall that there is a brief interval of ritual
impurity after giving birth because of the blood involved.  In any
case, it is not a sin to give birth or to be born, so the ritual impurity
would be alleviated in the usual fashion.

Concluding, any "burden of sin" Mary carried would have been adequately
alleviated through the standard methods; if it were necessary that she
remain "sinless" it would have been during the time she was pregnant;
any assertion that Mary was kept sinless from conception is not necessary.
It would have been just as easy, or easier, to keep any stain from Jesus
during His pre-infancy.  It is unfounded speculation to claim any such
thing for Mary; there is nothing in scripture to indicate any such opinion
on the part of the apostles, and the rise of the cult of the Virgin is
too easily tied to the simultaneous increasing prevalence of the notion of
Immaculate Conception.

Hutch