Ah, what would the catholic church do without
mysticism and fantasy. What indeed.
Oh, sure, the religion is alive and well
withing the hearts of it’s parishioners. Sorry,
dead otherwise.

Dear John Zmirak,
Thanks for your little essay. Also, I’ve been meaning to tell you that I really appreciated your introduction to Fr. Johannes Messner’s biogrpahy of Englebert Dollfuss, which I recommend to any good Catholic (and no-Catholic alike).
Again, thanks.

A skeleton chapel????

Groovy, man!

Yes, there’s another skeleton chapel in Portugal, I think in the city of Sintra.

Um, John Z?

My Lady (a Hong Kong born Anglican, who has risked life and limb by smuggling King James Bibles to the underground Chinese Christians) - and I, well, we both enjoyed your article, and we both love St Mary even while we are Protestants.  (And yes, John Z, I have become a Protestant, and the discussions on Takimag were instrumental in persuading me to become a Protestant!)

But anyway.  John Z, after my Lady and I finished reading this article of yours, we both asked each other:

“WHAT is the POINT of Jesus being born from a mother who was born without original sin?  If it’s all about the physicial, biological ancestry of Christ, then why wasn’t Mary’s MOTHER born without original sin?  Why should the stain of original sin be cut off arbitrarily in just one generation?  If it was necessary for God’s mother to be “immaculately conceived”, then why not God’s GRANDMOTHER?  This all smacks too much of obsession with the flesh and with DNA - an obsession which the likes of Jared Taylor and Steve Sailer are obssesed with, and make opportunist careers out of.!”

So there you go, John Z, my friend. 
Here is a question and a challenge, from me and my Lady - both of whom are devout Christians of the Protestant kind - why, why, WHY should the “immaculate conception” mean anything to Christians, as an arbitrary “cut-off” point between the generations of Jesus’ ancestry?

It smacks too much of obsession with blood and DNA.  If there was some Divine necessity for St Mary to be “conceived without sin”, then why was the immaculate conception cut off just in HER generation?

I mean, simply, the idea of the “immaculate conception” is just TOO close to the idea of “purity of blood and ancestry” in the Nazi way.  Why, WHY should we care about ONLY ONE GENERATION of Jesus’ ancestry being “pure”?  And if you believe that ANY sons or daughters of Adam (other than Christ) were born without original sin, then aren’t you getting close to biological idolatry?

Ah’m a just askin.....

Under the broad dome of the Catholic Church everything is found! That’s why we call it Cathlolic. A chapel dedicated to the Most Pure Vigin constructed of skeletons! Positively Chestertonian! The Church was Goth before Goth was cool, but much more than Goth. Such paradoxes point to a truth beyond convention:

“Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has been already admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape. Outrageously tall men might feel him to be short. Very short men might feel him to be tall. Old bucks who are growing stout might consider him insufficiently filled out; old beaux who were growing thin might feel that he expanded beyond the narrow lines of elegance. Perhaps Swedes (who have pale hair like tow) called him a dark man, while negroes considered him distinctly blonde. Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the centre. Perhaps, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad—in various ways.” G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch6.html)

“The Church is a house with a hundred gates; and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.”

Actually I think the operative word is conceived. John the Baptist was forgiven his stain of original sin when Mary went to visit the pregnant Elizabeth. This forgiveness caused John to leap in his mother’s womb.

Thus John was born without original sin. That’s why we celebrate the birth of John, Mary, and of course Jesus, but otherwise for Saints celebrate the day they died and entered heaven.

@John Ball

MY opinion is that Perpetual Virginity would only be possible if Our Lady were conceived without sin, ie the Immaculate Conception.

If normal male-female intercourse is necessary to produce a child, and if normal vaginal birth is necessary to deliver that child, and if Our Lady is a virgin before, during, and after the Nativity, then it is only logical to conclude that she was without sin, given that the loss of virginity, ie pain during childbirth, is an indicator of Original Sin.

In short, the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is the reason for the dogma of the Imaculate Conception.  It would only be logical if the Church were to declare the doctrine of Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity dogma.

Also, the doctrine of Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity can be found in the Protoevangelium of James, written sometime in the early 2nd century.

Dear John Ball,
The point of the Immaculate Conception, which has been believed almost universally in the Eastern and Western churches alike since apostolic times, is best explained by Pius IX himself and Cardinal Newman, not by humorists like me. But I’ll do my best. It has NOTHING to do with DNA, race, the filthy hateful Nazis, eugenics or anything else. The point is that as Jesus had no human father, He received His flesh entire from His mother. St. Paul spoke of Original Sin as transmitted through the blood, from father to son, mother to son. Fathers of the Church, theologians, saints alike--with the exception of Thomas Aquinas--thought that it was not fitting to imagine that Our Lord received His flesh from a tainted source. Surely He alone could have been exempted from the fleshly heritage of sin--which applies to all races equally, so relax, okay? But the Tradition of the Church, passed down from the Apostles (as the Scriptures were, long before the Canon) taught otherwise. You can see it the words of the Eastern liturgy:

“It is truly proper to glorify you, who have borne God, the ever-blessed and immaculate and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who, a Virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, truly the Mother of God, we magnify.”

Sounds pretty immaculate to me. If both lungs of the Church sing of Mary’s purity in such tones, it surely signifies more than just that she was baptized after a life of sin--a dunghill covered in snow, in Luther’s charming phrase to describe the redeemed soul of a Christian.

Thank you Mr. Zmirak, you reminded me of a Christmas Eve party the Concept and I hosted a few years go . Several couples and their children struggled in after services at the local Congregational Church on the Green. They were in various states of confusion, anger and disbelief because the Pastor, or Pastress had proceeded to abolish the decades long ceremony of throwing Oranges to children from the balcony because “someone might get hurt and expose the congregation to legal proceedings”. But the real whopper, on Christmas Eve no less was when she provided a ‘sermon” on the falsity of the story of the Virgin Birth and that the Three Wise Men were Zoroastrian Wizards. Who needs Atheism with Pastors like these? One of my ribald friends and I thought about publishing a bumper sticker: “Who boinked.......?” but thankfully came to our senses so as not to provide fodder for the Brothers of Santa Maria della Concezione..

You are right, the Church of Santa Maria della Concezione is a wondrous place, suitably placed on that Avenue of Luxury Perdition, the Via Veneto. Standing there, I almost wanted to renew my vows. It is a “must see”. These monks had a real sense of gallows humor, a quality altogether lacking in many of the pious of today.

Another fine relic full of portent and gloom is the Church of San Clemente, south of the Colosseum. If possible, go during lunch and eat in one of the non-tourist restaurants of the neighborhood where you can witness the entertaining spectacle of actors on lunch break, clad in the period garb of Colosseum Centurions, tumbling down stairs and out onto the pavement smoking cigarettes and gesticulating ala italiano while putting their helmets back on. The Church is notable for being a stacked history of Roman religious life from Paganism to the Crusades era and into today. One starts in a lovely spartan courtyard and then enters the main chapel, filled with lovely mosaics. From the chromatic light of the mosaics, one then descends to the lower floors and their early Christian and Mithraic histories.

Within the early Christian rooms, one can see the so called “Rotating Crypt Cover” of a relative of mine, one Marcus Aurelius Sabinus, a fine upstanding Pagan who saw his hard-earned Crypt cover purloined by a Christian, turned over and re-inscribed . Damned Christians have no respect for the sad sack remains of those who worshipped the Old Gods.

Ahhhhh Roma, such a fine sweet thing, teaming with the lives and spirits of the ages. Helios still obliges her and to stand in the lower balcony of the Capitoline Museum as the lights come up in the Forum at dusk is to sense the poetry.... despite the anguish.... that we mere mortals are fully capable of if only we allow ourselves. Watching twanging Texan tourists rub the verminiferous feral cats of the forum all over their faces before spreading their plague to the Hard Rock Cafe is a pleasure only a winsome pagan can fully appreciate.

Theology is a tough trade, folks, and requires great subtlety and feeling for nuance and shades of grey.

1. Luther’s heretical idea that the Grace of the redemption only “covers” our original sin, instead of the orthodox view that this Grace ontologically removes the stain of original sin altogether – this heresy has brought about a host of others.  Obviously, in the Lutheran/Calvinist view, no one ever could be or become immaculate.  Thus for such Protestants, we are not “made right” (justification = jus + facere) but only “pronounced right”.  The Catholic view is the opposite.  For such Protestants, it is God the Father Who would change, not man, by how God would look on man; formerly, He would see only our “total depravity”; now he would see us hidden by the grace of The Son’s redemption, as snow would cover dog droppings – which is to say that He wouldn’t see us at all.

Catholics regard this as heresy.  We are made right by Baptismal Grace (the infusion of the sanctifying Grace coming from the Redemption – (1.) by being “born again [for from above] by water and the spirit/wind/breath” of Baptism [John 3], and (2.) by dying and rising in/with Christ in Baptism [Romans 6] – and of course these citations need to be read in co-text and context).  Note also in the Protestant view the split in the unity of the Blessed Trinity – a vindictive hateful Father and his innocent (and kitschy) Son, a split even more obvious in the repugnant teaching of penal substitutional atonement.  And upon receiving Baptismal Grace, we are ontologically changed. It isn’t God who changes, but He who changes us.

“Total Depravity” is another repugnant teaching.  The orthodox view is that we are not totally depraved by original sin, but “wounded” by original sin.  And God is pleased by all good works, even good works done before the receiving of Sanctifying Grace.

Not that there are many fine things to be said about Protestants.  There some very fine things to be said about good ans smart people who (out of ignorance) otherwise defend the Clerical Fascist Dollfuß.  But we’ve been already over that.

2.  Now, with reference to John Ball, I’ll have more later to say about St. Augustine’s big boo-boo, his bad theory of “the inheritance view of original sin”, based the faulty text he had of Romans 5:12.  Had he a better text, he wouldn’t have developed this theory.

But I’ve got a Ron Paul meeting.  I’ll get back with y’all, and relate this to the Immaculate Conception.

I previously discussed how for Protestants the real issue isn’t the Immaculate Conception but “imputed” Grace vs the Catholic “infused” Grace.  But imputed Grace isn’t New Testamental.

2. Now to St. Augustine’s mistake.  His knowledge of Greek was only a little better than his knowledge of organic chemistry and molecular genetics.  He used a very faulty Latin translation of the NT Koine, a translation in circulation in the Western Empire before Jerome’s. He looked at Chapter 5 or Romans, Verse 12.  The Greek says “because all men sin”.  Augustine had a text that said “in whom all men sin” (perhaps in quo instead of a more correct quod clause?).  He looked at “whom” and looked back in the verse to its antecedent, “one man” (Adam).  Thus he developed his “inheritance theory” of Original Sin.  Had he the correct translation, he never would have developed this theory, for Augustine was a great saint and a faithful man.  So inherited sin isn’t New Testamental. The Eastern Church got it and kept it correct:  Original Sin isn’t an inherited trait, but simply is a force, a power that enters the world with Adam’s fall, and “infects” us all.  This infection is removed, “cured”, by Baptismal Grace. Mary was prevented from being “infected” at all, from the moment of her conception.

3.  In explaining this dogma to Protestants, it should be made clear that Mary received the Grace of the Redemption that we all receive in the efficacious sacrament of Baptism.  (I should add that this wasn’t the only Grace that she received.) I add also, praying to please Protestants, that this Grace, for Mary as for the rest of us, is gratuitous.  Mary, conceptually, needed the Redemption as do the rest of us; in anticipation of the Redemption, Redemptive Grace was given to Mary before the Redemption.  Put differently, had there been no redemption, there would have been no Immaculate Conception.  So the Solemnity tomorrow ultimately (but not exclusively) is Christological.

One problem remains.  For my Baptist friends, if I understand them aright, Baptism isn’t efficacious at all, and grace is imputed differently according to the Evangelical Decisionist dogma. For Evangelicals (at least those outside the Church of Christ), if an infant were to be unable to make the decision and then be baptized, then a fortiori an embryo would be unable also. So we have here really not a rejection of the Immaculate Conception, but a rejection of pedobaptism.  But Decisionism,“Believer Baptism”, and Imputed Grace aren’t New Testamental. 

To sum up: all of Protestantism had no choice but to reject the Immaculate Conception because of the Protestant dogmas of total depravity and imputed grace (discussed my previous writeback), for Calvinists in addition and other Anti-Arminians because of the rejections of Cooperating Grace and free(d) will, for Baptists because of the rejection of efficacious Baptism, and for Evangelicals because of the “Decisionist” view.  Such dogmas and such rejections are not New Testamental.  Well, fair is fair.  The Immaculate Conception isn’t New Testamental either.  But Catholics never claim to be sola scriptura; Protestants do.

Afterthought: I wonder, Was the Reformation polemic, and its Counter-Reformational reply, ultimately over the nature of Grace, OR over the source of authority.  Y’all’s view on this most welcome.

What th’hell this has to do with a tacky and morbid crypt in a church in Rome is beyond me.  Stay upstairs with the refined and the decent to see the fine painting of of Domenichino, Cortona, and the outstanding St. Michael by Reni.

I don’t suppose anyone here is wondering
what happens after we die? Or do you, like
all american middle-class chumps think you
will live forever. Take a few prescriptions,
you’ll be fine. 
I hope no one is invested in eternal life.

@Rich

How is it that YOU know what happens after one dies?

Or are you as ignorant of the unknown as the rest of us?

You have FAITH that nothing happens after death, whereas I have FAITH that there IS something after death.

Neither one of us really “knows” anything about our conditions after death.

Oh, come now. . .The blogs here simply drip
with self-satisfaction. I know this that and
the other. Get with the times. Embrace your
ignorance. Release your faith. and hope.
Lives are better led in an emotional state
with no hope of reward.

Rich;

As your fellow atheists Penn and Teller might say: Bull**it.

If there is no afterlife, no judgement, no Heaven and Hell - if Mother Theresa and Josef Stalin both get the same thing in the end, then why *not* be Stalin?

True, atheism gives one no reason to be Torquemada or Osama bin Laden. But it also gives one no reason *not* to be Idi Amin or Tony Soprano - just a mean thug who hurts anyone who gets in his way in order to get ahead and live in luxury. Without God, without Hell - why not?

The only thing that could dissuade you would be moral qualms or fear of earthly punishment, both of which can be dispensed with fairly easily. The morality especially - without God there can be no objective morality. Your idea of what is right and wrong and my idea of what is right and wrong are just two dude’s opinions. This holds true no matter who we are - wether we’re Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson or just two average guys.

What can you turn to, then, as a basis of morality (or ethics, if you prefer a more sterile word)? Nature? Watch the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet for an afternoon to see how brutal nature can be. Majority opinion? That’s countenanced some pretty awful stuff over the years. Rationality? Since when was mercy and charity rational (they call it “cold, hard” reason for a reason)? The enlightened guidance of educated, progressive “brights”? Still just some dudes’ opinions.

And even if you had a pretty good basis for such things that would hold up well in a philosophy discussion, again, why should I conform to your idea of ethics? You’re just some guy.

You think too much. objective morality. .
really. I simply see a bunch of people
removed from one community of neighbors, and
enjoined with a community of religionists.
That doesn’t make for a solid community of
neighbors. I’d have to say that both
communities are weakened by a lack of
investment. one community gets your heart
and the other gets your mind. Unitarian not
athiest. Dogma is a distastful choice.

Oh, Oh My God! Who’s to say you wouldn’t
sell all your earthly possessions and join
Hitler. You don’t have to be Idi Amin to
forget all of your morals and hack your
fellow man to bits on his order. It’s a
history that is repeated over and over
again, no?

Sid, I appreciated your brilliant remarks on Original Sin and other subjects. I wonder if your opposition to Augustine’s concept of original sin as inheritance is based only on philological conclusions or rather that you consider the inheritance theses to be tainted by some sort of “subconscious” Manichaeism on the part of Augustine. In both cases, however, you are probably wrong, for the idea of original sin as inheritance seems to have been taught long before Augustine. What is your source on this problem? I’d love to know what books you been reading on this subject.

As per your question on whether the Reformation polemic is about grace or authority, it seems to me that it could be summed up in the “three sola”: Sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

An Orthodox version of this may be seen at:

http://www.deathtotheworld.com/downloads/wallpaper4.jpg

I do love the caption: “Freedom from the tyranny of fashion”.

Mr. Cundiff,

Really now, Original Sin is a “force, a power that enter the world with Adams fall and ‘infects’ [wink, wink] us all”? What sort of Gnostic mysticism is this?

St. Augustine had it right all along and it is the Orthodox, close cousins of the Pelagians, who contaminated the dogma with their false doctrine. The Council of Trent defined and confirmed the doctrine of Augustine which is nothing less than the infallible truth of Apostolic and Divine Revelation:

“Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse…If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

“If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

The truth shall set you free.

MRyan

Yes, I too think this “force, power” thing is, if not gnostic, at least very very strange, especially as it came from Sid.

“Not that there are many fine things to be said about Protestants.”

Well, for one thing, Sid, our clergy seem to do a much better job keeping their paws off of young kids.

I actually have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church and for most of the Catholics I know (who, unlike Sid, don’t pine for the Inquisition).  But when I hear crap like that, I have to strike back, even with a low blow.

Paleo, that’s what we call a cheap shot. Sid was talking about Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, not the protestant faithfuls who are just victims.

MRyan, I see nothing in Trent’s dogmas that contracts the Eastern Church’s view.  Original Sin indeed did enter the world through our first parent, and remains a force “infecting” all who are humans (children of Adam). True, Trent may have had Augustine’s view in mind, but its canons do not directly teach it and can be understood the way the Eastern Church understands Original Sin.  My reason for making this distinction was in reply to Mr. Balls too literal biological/genetic conceptions. If one wishes to adhere to the inheritance view, one should remember that neither Augustine or Trent had any knowledge of organic chemistry or genetic, be it Mendelian or molecular.

I’m happy with those who wish to stick to the inheritance view.  Yet I’m still an orthodox Catholic if I choose the Eastern Church’s view.

“Gnostic” is a Red Herring.  There is nothing “gnostic” about Original Sin as a “force” or “power” anymore than there is anything “gnostic” about Grace being a force or power.  What is more, I don’t agree with the Calvinist dogma of “irresistible Grace”, but I wouldn’t stoop to call it “gnostic”.  The word “power” (dunamin) was good enough for St. Mark in his gospel (Chapter 5, Verse 30)—a saint who hardly qualifies as a “gnostic”—so it’s good enough for me.

Of course, in Theology, we often resort to metaphors: “stain”, “washing away” the “stain”, “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, “inheritance”, even the word “sacrament”, etc.—and such metaphors ought not be pressed into only a literal meaning.

(Of course, in the Eucharist, we are dealing with literal realities, not metaphorical ones.)

Now for “Paleo’s” [sic]charges.  We don’t hear much about Protestant pedophiles and ephebophiles for two reasons: (1) the media hate Catholics even more than they hate Evangelical Protestants, and (2) given the independence of Protestant parishes, you don’t get much money by suing them. For the record, the scandal in the Catholic Church is not one of pedophilia but ephebophilia.  The number of real clerical pedophiles is small, and no more than in the general adult population.

Now as to “Paleo’s” [sic] 2nd charge, not only am I against the Inquisition (the popular understanding of it is largely Protestant exaggeration and “misinformation"), but I have on this Website repeatedly argued with the sympathizers and camp followers of Clerical Fascism that the Faith may never be forced on people, nor may anyone coerce upon someone the Catholic church or impose on a social order a “Catholic” Theocracy, per Nostra aetate (Vatican II 1965) and Dignitatis humanae (ditto) and Dei verbum (ditto).  I have gone a step further and said that such coercion is clearly Semipelagian.  That Christians have not followed these teachings always is a sad fact.

“Well, for one thing, Sid, our clergy seem to do a much better job keeping their paws off of young kids.”
Yes, that was a low blow; and the pot should be cautious of calling the kettle black.  But it was somewhat understandable given (its open season) the lot of putrid imposters we have posing as priests and Bishops who give scandal to the world - and not to the Church only.  Nor is there an excuse for the scandalous cover-up - and we shall not offer one; except to say that Church, by her relaxation of her ancient strictures, “opened the windows” to the world and allowed to the smoke of Satan, under the cover of modernism, a grand entry.
The Catholic Church is both human and divine and what we are witnessing is its fallible human dimension in all of its insidious glory; for men who attempt to remake the Church in their own image have fallen, quite hard, and are, as St. Augustine said, a “mass of perdition”.  And as G.K. Chesterton said, “There are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands” - and we are witnessing a shocking fall at an infinity of angles. 
But on a much more profound level, we are witnessing a second Gethsemane and second Calvary - our Lord, in His Mystical Body (the Catholic Church), is being scourged and crucified again - as prophesy has foretold; with much of the scourging (again) at the hands of those given charge of her care.  Are we in the Agony of the Garden or are the nails being hammered into bone and sinew as we speak?  It is hard to say - but whether we are in the days pre-figuring the last days or are in fact in the final tribulations, we have been forewarned that these days would come.
Now is not the time to abandon the One Ark of Salvation; for she is still there in all of her resplendent beauty beneath the barnacles of human corruption; eclipsed, but her divine light shineth still - and cannot be extinguished.
“Turn away from the Catholic Church, and to whom will you go? It is your only chance of peace and assurance in this turbulent, changing world. There is nothing between it and skepticism, when men exert their reason freely. Private creeds, fancy religions, may be showy and imposing to the many in their day; national religions may lie huge and lifeless, and cumber the ground for centuries, and distract the attention or confuse the judgement of the learned; but in the long run it will be found that either the Catholic Religion is verily and indeed the coming in of the unseen world into this, or that there is nothing positive, nothing dogmatic, nothing real in any one of our notions as to whence we come and whither we are going. Unlearn Catholicism, and you become Protestant, Unitarian, Deist, Pantheist, Skeptic, in a dreadful, but infallible succession…” (John Cardinal Newmanm, Discourses to Mixed Congregations {cf. A Tolkien Celebration, Joseph Pearce, ed.})
And so, barnacles and all, and in all humility, we would be negligent in our duties if we failed to invite all of our separated friends back to the unity of their Father’s house, outside of which there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins.  Come, join us; the cross is heavy, the persecution is only beginning, but the burden is light - and filled with the foolish joy of Christianity. 
“We wish that they, each and every one of them…may be zealous and eager to tear themselves out of that state in which it is not possible for them to be without fear regarding their eternal salvation. For, even though they may be ordained toward the mystic Body of the Redeemer by a certain unknowing desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church. Let them, therefore, come back to Catholic unity, and united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ may they hasten to the one Head in the society of glorious love…We wait for them with open arms to return, not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their Father’s house.” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

Sid, there can be no other concept of original sin in the Eastern Churches unless you’re talking about the Orthodox or some other schismatic eastern sect, in which case you cannot consider yourself an orthodox Catholic (as you said). From what I know all Eastern Churches are in full union with Rome, albeit with different RITES (not doctrines). Can you sehd some light on this?

Sid, Paul is right, “there can be no other concept of original sin in the Eastern Churches unless you’re talking about the Orthodox or some other schismatic eastern sect, in which case you cannot consider yourself an orthodox Catholic (as you said)”.

You are Orthodox if you choose the Eastern Orthodox view - and that it is the problem.  Your “view” is a direct contradiction to the Catholic doctrine, and I don’t need a solemn ex cathedra canonical definition to prove it - it is the constant teaching and understanding of the Church from day one, and we can support that universal, ordinary, common, doctrinal and infallible “view” by citing the fathers, the popes, the Doctors, the Councils and the Saints.  Let Pope Pius XI confirm this constant and infallible dogma:

Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge, March 14, 1937: “‘Original sin’ is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him
(Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer.”

You said, “Original Sin isn’t an inherited trait, but simply is a force, a power that enters the world with Adam’s fall, and ‘infects’ us all.”

Who are we going to believe - you - or the Catholic Church?  Now, you stated that “Augustine had a text that said ‘in whom all men sin’ (perhaps in quo instead of a more correct quod clause?).  He looked at ‘whom’ and looked back in the verse to its antecedent, ‘one man’ (Adam).  Thus he developed his ‘inheritance theory’ of Original Sin.”

The Council of Trent, again: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”

That is a direct word-for-word magisterial rebuttal to your assertion.  It’s bad enough that you accuse St. Augustine of some woeful deficiency in translating an ancient text which caused him to commit a huge blunder in understanding the nature and meaning of Original sin; but, apparently, the entire patrimony of the Church is guilty of the same - including our dogmatic Councils!

The Council of Trent, again:  “this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation…By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Did you catch that Sid: “so death passed upon all men IN WHOM ALL HAVE SINNED, is NOT to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it…that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation.”

But that is precisely what you are contesting; you are saying that the Catholic Church got it wrong, that one may in fact understand this dogma “otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it”. And the Church says in rebuttal “Anathema sit!”

Honestly Sid, I don’t understand you’re embracing the Orthodox heterodoxy on original sin - have I misunderstand you?  I don’t see how - your words are clear enough.

If I’ve ever read any more bickering over semantics in my life, I’m not sure.

Is Original Sin “inherited” or “propagated” (via some “force”, as Mr Cundiff stated)?

In all honesty, it doesn’t matter.

The FACT of the matter is (as long as we agree on this fact): Original Sin exists, and everyone is stained with it, whether it be inherited or propagated really doesn’t matter; baptism (in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is necessary in order to bring a human being into the Grace of God and His Church.  What happens before and after that baptism is a mystery: whether or not a baby is conceived with Original Sin in his mother’s womb or it was propagated into his nature at his conception is unknown, a mystery, even unnecessary knowledge - it does not affect the nature of the Faith any way at all.

I don’t know for a fact, but I doubt very seriously that any pope for 2,000 years ever got around to debating such an argument; it really is not worth debating.

HOWEVER, what is worth debating is the ephebophilia of Catholic priests.  Having been around Catholic priests for the better part of 30+ years, I can tell you that I have never, nor has anyone I’ve ever known, been approached by a Catholic priest for any sexual causes, even while being a rather “hunky” (if I may say so myself) teenager.  The only people I personally know of that were victims of sexual abuse were abused by their stepfathers, uncles, and acquaintances.  Those people never went to the “authorities”, and I believe one reason is that there was nothing to be gained, and everything to be lost.  If I were a disgruntled Catholic, and had been abused by a Catholic priest, it would only be natural to try and bring that priest, a symbol of the Church, down by filing complaints, no matter how spurious (and I do believe that a rather large bulk of abuse complaints are spurious, but the Church, for whatever reason, pays them off - a mistake in my opinion).

The anti-Catholic/pedophilia priest scandal seems a lot like, to me, a modern day “witch-hunt”, once again being pursued by the anti-Catholic/Protestants, with no real rational thought involved.

Question: is gravity propagated throughout the universe or inherited?

The question is absurd, and has no business being answered.

I feel the same way regarding Original Sin.

Mr. Capp has answered Mr Ryan well enough.  I myself see no problem with the Eastern Church’s view of Original Sin, not Augustine’s.  The Eastern View is not in conflict with Trent’s purport.

My main point was to discuss the Immaculate Conception.

“WHAT is the POINT of Jesus being born from a mother who was born without original sin? 

The First Adam was “born” from an clean, undefiled (by sin) Earth.

Jesus, the second Adam, was born from a virgin who was preserved from the stain of sin.

And here is Pope St. Pius X in Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum

If anyone desires a confirmation of this it may easily be found in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. For leaving aside tradition which, as well as Scripture, is a source of truth, how has this persuasion of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin appeared so conformed to the Catholic mind and feeling that it has been held as being one, and as it were inborn in the soul of the faithful? “We shrink from saying,” is the answer of Dionysius of Chartreux, “of this woman who was to crush the head of the serpent that had been crushed by him and that Mother of God that she had ever been a daughter of the Evil One” (Sent. d. 3, q. 1). No, to the Christian intelligence the idea is unthinkable that the flesh of Christ, holy, stainless, innocent, was formed in the womb of Mary of a flesh which had ever, if only for the briefest moment, contracted any stain. And why so, but because an infinite opposition separates God from sin? There certainly we have the origin of the conviction common to all Christians that Jesus Christ before, clothed in human nature, He cleansed us from our sins in His blood, accorded Mary the grace and special privilege of being preserved and exempted, from the first moment of her conception, from all stain of original sin.

19. If then God has such a horror of sin as to have willed to keep free the future Mother of His Son not only from stains which are voluntarily contracted but, by a special favor and in prevision of the merits of Jesus Christ, from that other stain of which the sad sign is transmitted to all us sons of Adam by a sort of hapless heritage: who can doubt that it is a duty for everyone who seeks by his homage to gain the heart of Mary to correct his vicious and depraved habits and to subdue the passions which incite him to evil?

20. Whoever moreover wishes, and no one ought not so to wish, that his devotion should be worthy of her and perfect, should go further and strive might and main to imitate her example. It is a divine law that those only attain everlasting happiness who have by such faithful following reproduced in themselves the form of the patience and sanctity of Jesus Christ: “for whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born amongst many brethren” (Romans viii., 29). But such generally is our infirmity that we are easily discouraged by the greatness of such an example: by the providence of God, however, another example is proposed to us, which is both as near to Christ as human nature allows, and more nearly accords with the weakness of our nature. And this is no other than the Mother of God. “Such was Mary,” very pertinently points out St. Ambrose, “that her life is an example for all.” And, therefore, he rightly concludes: “Have then before your eyes, as an image, the virginity and life of Mary from whom as from a mirror shines forth the brightness of chastity and the form of virtue” (De Virginib. L. ii., c. ii.).

21. Now if it becomes children not to omit the imitation of any of the virtues of this most Blessed Mother, we yet wish that the faithful apply themselves by preference to the principal virtues which are, as it were, the nerves and joints of the Christian life--we mean faith, hope, and charity towards God and our neighbor. Of these virtues the life of Mary bears in all its phases the brilliant character; but they attained their highest degree of splendor at the time when she stood by her dying Son. Jesus is nailed to the cross, and the malediction is hurled against Him that “He made Himself the Son of God” (John xix., 7). But she unceasingly recognized and adored the divinity in Him. She bore His dead body to the tomb, but never for a moment doubted that He would rise again. Then the love of God with which she burned made her a partaker in the sufferings of Christ and the associate in His passion; with him moreover, as if forgetful of her own sorrow, she prayed for the pardon of the executioners although they in their hate cried out: “His blood be upon us and upon our children” (Matth. xxvii., 25).

22. But lest it be thought that We have lost sight of Our subject, which is the Immaculate Conception, what great and effectual succor will be found in it for the preservation and right development of those same virtues. What truly is the point of departure of the enemies of religion for the sowing of the great and serious errors by which the faith of so many is shaken? They begin by denying that man has fallen by sin and been cast down from his former position. Hence they regard as mere fables original sin and the evils that were its consequence. Humanity vitiated in its source vitiated in its turn the whole race of man; and thus was evil introduced amongst men and the necessity for a Redeemer involved. All this rejected it is easy to understand that no place is left for Christ, for the Church, for grace or for anything that is above and beyond nature; in one word the whole edifice of faith is shaken from top to bottom. But let people believe and confess that the Virgin Mary has been from the first moment of her conception preserved from all stain; and it is straightway necessary that they should admit both original sin and the rehabilitation of the human race by Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and the Church and the law of suffering. By virtue of this Rationalism and Materialism is torn up by the roots and destroyed, and there remains to Christian wisdom the glory of having to guard and protect the truth. It is moreover a vice common to the enemies of the faith of our time especially that they repudiate and proclaim the necessity of repudiating all respect and obedience for the authority of the Church, and even of any human power, in the idea that it will thus be more easy to make an end of faith. Here we have the origin of Anarchism, than which nothing is more pernicious and pestilent to the order of things whether natural or supernatural. Now this plague, which is equally fatal to society at large and to Christianity, finds its ruin in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by the obligation which it imposes of recognizing in the Church a power before which not only has the will to bow, but the intelligence to subject itself. It is from a subjection of the reason of this sort that Christian people sing thus the praise of the Mother of God: “Thou art all fair, O Mary, and the stain of original sin is not in thee.” (Mass of Immac. Concep.) And thus once again is justified what the Church attributes to this august Virgin that she has exterminated all heresies in the world

I have a hard time figuring-out exactly what the Orthodox Churches Teach about Original Sin. There are, as lest as far as I can tell, different answers depending upon whom you ask.

Here is an interesting observation by a former Episcopalian

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2006/02/must-eastern-orthodox-believe-in.html

I thank “Spartacus” for his link. The Eastern Church does indeed acknowledge Original Sin. Indeed, all Christians must so acknowledge or become Pelagian, in which case the entire Redemption, or even the entire economy of Grace, falla apart—and one wouldn’t have Christianity at all anymore, but some “Endarkenment” view of “no sin, only error” (Emerson), and then all we would need is education, not Grace. 

The issue at hand is not Original Sin, or the occasion of how it entered the world (Adam’s fall), or its effects (concupiscence and death), or how it it removed (by dying and rising with Christ in Baptism), but rather how we come to be “infected” by it and with it.  Here Augustine and the Eastern Church would seem to differ.

I can see what the problem is with paleoconservatives
and why they got rolled over by neconos.

They spend an inordinate amount of time arguing among
themselves for questions that can be archived till later
and multiply adversaries when they should be seeking
allies....

Mr. Shea has an interesting idea about the reasons for the difference twixt, if you twixt, East and West as regards the issue.

http://markshea.blogspot.com/

What About the Eastern Churches?

That said, the question still remains: If the Immaculate Conception is truly apostolic teaching, then why do the Eastern Orthodox Churches reject it? After all, those Churches trace their lineage to apostolic times just as the Catholic Church does. To answer that, we have to understand why the Roman Church developed her doctrine in the way she did and why the East did not take the same path.

Some people have the notion the Eastern Churches reject the Immaculate Conception because a few early Eastern Fathers (Origen, Basil, and John Chrysostom) expressed a couple of doubts about Mary’s sinlessness. Origen thought that, during Christ’s Passion, the sword that pierced Mary’s soul was disbelief. Basil had the same notion. And John Chrysostom thought her guilty of ambition and pushiness in Matthew 12:46 (an incident we have already examined).

But the remarkable thing about these opinions is how isolated they turn out to be. Essentially, they demonstrate (once again) something about the development of doctrine we’ve already seen in connection with the Trinity: The Catholic Church is not a monolith and her people, even very good people, sometimes voice in good faith ideas that end up departing from the orthodox norm. For the reality is that, apart from these three, the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers in both east and west is that Mary is “pure”, “inviolate”, “all-Holy”, “spotless”, “immaculate” and altogether without sin.

• The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
• Origen, [despite his comment about her alleged unbelief-MPS], nonetheless calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
• Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
• Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
• Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
• In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36). Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
• It is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
• She was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);
• She was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
• When the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).
• The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body.... my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment .... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” ("Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
• To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
• Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

So if the Eastern Churches ignored Origen, Basil and Chrysostom when they speculated that Mary was sinful, why do they reject the Immaculate Conception? In a nutshell, they reject it because the Immaculate Conception is the answer to a number of questions the Eastern Churches were never much interested in asking. And if you don’t ask the questions, you don’t come up with the answers. But, as we shall see, that’s cold comfort for Evangelicals.

The Pelagian Controversy

Here’s the deal: In the fifth century, a question arose in the Western Church: “Are we sinners because we sin or do we sin because we are sinners?” A monk from Britain named Pelagius began to teach that we are only sinners because we sin, and so we can save ourselves simply by willing not to sin anymore. Jesus, said Pelagius, was primarily sent as a good example. Our task was to just grit our teeth and, through sheer will power, imitate Him perfectly, thereby freeing ourselves from sin. This notion began to attract some Christians in western Europe because it appealed to a cultural imperative that approved of demanding high and heroic deeds from oneself. There was only one problem: Pelagianism wasn’t true—a fact proven in the Laboratory of Human Experience by everybody who has ever tried it.

The foe of Pelagianism was the great Father of the Western Church, Augustine of Hippo. Basing his argument on Paul’s teaching, Augustine reminded the Pelagians that, in truth, we sin because we are sinners, born of the fallen Adam. This is why, Augustine argued, the Gospel says, “[S]in came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Romans 6:12). And so, concluded Augustine (with the agreement of the Western bishops and the Pope), Pelagius is disastrously wrong to claim that we can, on our own and without God’s aid, save ourselves from sin. For sin is, in its most fundamental reality, the lack of the life of God. And it’s nonsense to speak of restoring the lack of God’s life in our souls without God.

Now all of this was basically believed in the Eastern Churches as well. Eastern Catholics read the same Pauline letters their Roman cousins read. But the Pelagian controversy never really affected the Eastern Churches. So the Eastern theologians never saw much point to closely defining just how it occurs that we are sinners, and therefore they never got around to fussing much about philosophical terms like “original sin”. The East simply tended to affirm the broad and mysterious statement that we are all sinners “in Adam” and left it at that.

Why does this matter? Because if you don’t have a concept of original sin threshed out and articulated as it has been in the Roman tradition, then you don’t need to explain how it is that Mary isn’t affected by original sin. You can—and, until need arises, probably should—simply do what the Eastern Churches did: acclaim Mary as “Panagia” or “All Holy” (i.e. sinless), sing “Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!” and leave it at that. That’s why there’s not much comfort for Evangelicals in the Eastern Churches. For Eastern Orthodoxy simultaneously doesn’t bother with the notion of original sin (which Evangelicals, relying on Catholic tradition, insist upon) while heaping the same accolades on Mary’s sinless life that Catholics do.

They spend an inordinate amount of time arguing among themselves for questions that can be archived till later and multiply adversaries when they should be seeking
allies....

If we can’t get this right, we can’t get politics right :)

Although, I still think it is possible to do both.

Any discussion that deals with eternal salvation is much more important than politics.  I think I am learning some new things or at least refining some of my ideas because of this discussion of original sin.  My thanks to the contributors.

You’re absolutely right, Kirt, salvation is way more important and all others should be postponed. I too am very grateful to all contributors for making this comment box extremely interesting, and especially to Sid Cundiff, whose comments are always so rich and insightful, even when I dare to disagree with him.

Adriana: The issue of Original Sin is indeed also a political one.  And all political questions are ultimately religious ones.  Pelagius’ heretical view is that we don’t need Grace, that man’s a pretty good fellow, and all he needs is moral guidance – all retreaded by the “Endarkenment:, by19th Century Protestant Liberalism, and 20th C Social Gospel, and heterodox Catholic Liberation Theology. 

Alas, “moral guidance” can come in the form brainwashing and propaganda in schools, loyalty oaths, torchlight parades, censorship, “the big lie”, strip-searching, a midnight knock of the door from the Secret Police, sleep-deprivation, blinding with light, the rack, lynching, waterboarding, Taser-gunning, the Garrote, pulling out toenails, Bastinado, knee-capping, electric shock to the genitals, tanks in the streets of Budapest, the Gulag, the gas chamber, ethnic pogroms and genocide, cutting an opponent to death piece by piece, flying airplanes into buildings, turning Atlanta into an ash dump, “marching” through Georgia, firebombing Dresden, firestorming Rotterdam and Hamburg, nuking Nagasaki, “shock and awe” in Baghdad, gas on the Western Front, dropping folks out of helicopters high over the South Atlantic, and the stake, lighter fluid, and matches.  Lenin and all his assorted camp followers, including his admirers Benito and ‘Dolf, are at core Pelagian.  Ditto Wilsonianism and Dishonest Abe. 

Alas, some Christians – from Paul IV of odious memory and his ghetto to Cromwell at Drogheda to Clerical Fascists – have been Semipelagians.

Sparticus: Again thanks for another link.  Shea is on track except for his discussion of St. Augustine.

Shea is on track except for his discussion of St. Augustine.

What’d he get wrong about St. Augustine?

Dear John Zmirak,

I skimmed through most of the (to me, pointless and fungible) comments which argued obscure points of theology on this thread.

But I have thoroughly read, and appreciated and enjoyed, John Zmirak’s reply to me.

JZ, I remain a Protestant, but I regard you - not all Catholics, but you personally - as one of the brightest and most eloquent lights of Christianity in our time.

And I know that you, JZ, know, that most Roman Catholics don’t think about the Immaculate Conception in rarefied theological ways.  Most Roman Catholics just revere Mary in a common-sense way as the Mother of God.  So do the Eastern Orthodox Christians, and so do traditional Protestants (of whom I am one, as an active member of my local Anglican Church here in Australia.)

Now it’s Christmas season in Australia - and here in Perth, a mostly Protestant city (and mostly British-stock, unlike Sydney these days) - where most of the (mostly Protestant) denizens of Western Australia STILL take Christmas very seriously (Western Australia is the most conservative state in Australia) - well, we have Christmas in Summer!  And in this very Anglo/Scottish-PROTESTANT city of Perth, there are pictures of Mary and the Christ Child, all over the city during this Christmas season.  And almost no one here thinks or cares or knows the slightest thing about the “Immaculate Conception” (except for the handful of traditionalist Catholics who attend the Latin Mass at Perth’s oldest Catholic Church, built circa 1840 - JZ, you would love that old “pioneer” church, and I’ve attended their mass although I refrained from taking the sacraments...but JZ, if you ever visit Perth, I would like to go with you to a Latin Mass at Perth’s oldest RC church, the pioneer RC church built c 1840!)

I mean:  my next-door neighbour is a nominal Roman Catholic.  His (second) wife is Anglican.  His father’s father was a Protestant from Yorkshire (my Ball family’s province), and his mother was Irish-Australian, the granddaughter of an Irishman who was sent to Australia as a prisoner.  My neighbour doesn’t care, or even KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT Roman Catholic doctrine.  But he is a professed Christian, and he says so without embarassment.

To him - and to his Protestant wife, and their Protestant children - and to me, too - the technical details of the theology of the “immaculate conception” don’t mean much.  All we care about, is the simple truth that God chose to be born as Man, and God’s mother was a Virgin.

All else, all other elaborations on that simple profession of Faith, are superfluous, except for the (so-called) “wise” whom St Paul excoriated.

Merry Christmas, John Zmirak!  And my (Hong-Kong born Chinese, and now Australian) Lady, who is an Anglican Christian, has been playing “Ave Maria” over and over again on my CD player!~

FYI. A link to an excellent summary of Original Sin

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num54.htm

Mr. Ball. First you asked -

“WHAT is the POINT of Jesus being born from a mother who was born without original sin?

and several of us responded and now you write…

I skimmed through most of the (to me, pointless and fungible) comments which argued obscure points of theology on this thread.

So, it appears to me you asked a question without really desiring an answer. And, there is nothing “obscure” about the theology posted here. You may not be personally interested in it but others, obviously, are.

Have a Blessed Advent, brother.

A bit more on why the Chapel is built thus:

The Holy Friars have soil from the Holy Land that they are buried in for a time, and then their bones are retrieved for the Chapel furnishings. The limited amount of soil accounts for the accumulation through the ages of so many bones (back when vocations were more numerous clearly than today).

The one point that John Zmirak did not raise about The Feast of the Immaculate Conception is her reception of the grace of absence of original sin in anticipation.

This is an important one for it marks the division between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understandings of Our Lady Mary’s role (the EO hold that she *did* have *original* sin). For the EO for Jesus Christ to fully receive the Two Natures (divine and Human) and thus allow the redemption of Mankind and ultimate reunion with Godhead Our Lady Mary *must* have original sin, for that is a part of the human nature of the Fall.

@ John Ball’s odd extension of Zeno’s paradox on the absence of Original Sin in Our Lady Mary’s Mother (and so on and so on) the obvious answer is the individual distinction of human souls. Ockham would say don’t multiply when one will do. You don’t need Mary’s mother’s mother to have conceived Mary’s mother immaculately when to accomplish the goal you only need Mary Immaculately conceived.

In addition, the Creeds teach that Our Lord Jesus Christ descended into hell for its harrowing, redeeming the righteous dead. He’d have a hard time getting a chain of immaculately conceived women outta there, and if they weren’t there, where were they? The bosom of Abraham?