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