Add a comment above
Top Opinion
-
this_____
+8The belief that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without original sin, and did not require baptism to confer Sanctifying Grace.
Have a Blessed Day Sister!
Because it's celebrated only two weeks before Christmas, many people erroneously believe the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus in His mother Mary's womb. Not so.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary means that she was conceived without the stain of original sin that the rest of us are conceived with.
This does not mean that Mary did not need a Savior, though. Mary's Savior was God, just as He is for the rest of us. He just chose Mary to be saved in a different manner than everyone else.
The Catholic Church DID NOT create this!
That's how YOU choose to interpert it.
I empathize with you, but The Catholic Church has brainwashed innocent and trusting believers with a plethora of heresies an false doctrines. I was Christened Catholic and have 13 years of Catholic education and many more years of service.
Fortunately I have since learned the truth.
It sounds like you were raised as a Catholic and sadly we have many like you who leave the Church because they were never taught the Doctrine properly.
Moreover, since they know nothing of the Church they ridicule her and say things such as You stated, “The Catholic Church has brainwashed innocent and trusting believers with a plethora of heresies an false doctrines.”
That's Not a fair statement.
So please don't refere to my Church's Doctrine as "brainwash" because there are many True Devote Catholics who know and understand our Faith; I'm sorry You didn't get it.
Peace...
The truth is, Mary was an ordinary girl, just like any other. She became pregnant with Jesus while she was still a virgin, by a miracle of the Holy Spirit. She remained untouched (sexually) until after giving birth to Jesus. She and Joseph went on to have other children. Jesus' half brothers and sister(s) are mentioned multiple times and some even by name.
http://www.catholic.com/tract...
The most convincing to me is this:
"Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons."
The tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity goes all the way back to the Church Fathers in the first century. I'm sure you're not going to change your mind, but at least you should understand it did not come out of whim and it's not just the Catholic Church.
Second, you do realize that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli (the three biggies of Protestantism) all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary? In fact just about all Christians until about two hundred years ago believed it. Like I said before, all Christians that trace their heritage to the first century still believe it. It was a known fact that for some reason did not make it into the New Testament.
"Did not make it into the New Testament." Could the reason for that simply be that it is not true?
Meanwhile the New Testament clearly indicates that Jesus did have (half-)brothers and sister(s.) You can try to twist and turn and explain it away all you want. The Bible is quite clear on this fact.
You can believe whatever you want, but Christian theologians greater than you (if you consider yourself a theologian, and just because you read the bible doesn't make you a theologian) have disagreed, including the great Protestants. So when you start off your original comment with "the truth is..." you ought to have a little more Christian humility and recognize that certain things are in dispute and that just maybe you are wrong and it isn't the truth.
And please, that notion of Babtist - good people that they are, and I have several as my friends - being at the origins of Christianity in the first century is a fallacy.
Here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
and here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Babtists evolved out of low church Anglicanism while merging with Anapbabtism. Neither were anywhere near the first century.
Peace be with you. I wish you no ill will.
You can believe whatever you want, but Christian theologians greater than you (if you consider yourself a theologian, and just because you read the bible doesn't make you a theologian) have disagreed, including the great Protestants. So when you start off your original comment with "the truth is..." you ought to have a little more Christian humility and recognize that certain things are in dispute and that just maybe you are wrong and it isn't the truth.
And please, that notion of Babtist - good people that they are, and I have several as my friends - being at the origins of Christianity in the first century is a fallacy.
Here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
and here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Babtists evolved out of low church Anglicanism while merging with Anapbabtism. Neither were anywhere near the first century.
Peace be with you. I wish you no ill will.
Not meaning to offend.
Before I got serious about Christianity in my 40's, I have to admit that I always thought that this referred to the birth of Christ. I didn't find out until I was in RCIA that this referred to the birth of Mary. ;-)