From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Mon Dec 07 1998 - 08:56:51 MST
On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 12:53:41 -0500, Michael Lorrey <retroman@together.net>
wrote:
>As a person who was raised Roman Catholic, was an altar boy and actually
read
>the bible, I have to say you are stupendously wrong.
I am also Roman Catholic, was an altar boy and have studied the bible for
many years (not that that's relevant to this doctrine), as well as the
standard doctrinal works. I have to tell you that *you* are amazingly wrong
here:
>An Immaculate Conception takes place when a virgin becomes pregnant and
her hymen remains
>intact, thus proving that the child has no earthly father. Its
'immaculate' because it is
>prefectly [sic] clean, with no blood from the breaking of the hymen... get
it?
Au contraire, the Immaculate Conception refers to *Mary's* conception, not
Jesus'. If you'll look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find that
it is the doctrine that Mary was conceived without original sin. (This idea
has been rejected by almost all Protestants as having no biblical
foundation.) It was defined as dogma by Pope Pius IX in the mid-19th
century, one of the only two "ex cathedra" pronouncements in history.
Jesus' condition of being born to a virgin is called the Virgin Birth - and
by the way, this is believed by all traditionalist Christians, not just
Catholics/Orthodox, since it's explicitly taught in two of the Gospels.
These are two entirely separate teachings.
Do I care? Not really - it's all myth, though I still like hearing the
stories.
Pax et bonum -
Dick Gray, SFO
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:55 MST