Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Randy Carson]

I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

You are in a state of grace after you attend confession yes? One can be in grace yet also previously have been in sin.

Of course. After baptism, the stain of original sin has been washed away. After confession, one is returned to a state of grace. However, Mary was protected from original sin in the first place, and she never committed a single sin during the course of her earthly life.

Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

An Ark that came out of a womb tainted by sin. St Anne wasn't Immaculately concieved was she? I'm afraid that's being touched.

Mary was born from St. Anne in the normal way, but she did not inherit the sin of Adam from her parents. This is was the Immaculate Conception is all about.

Not to mention the cohabitation, considering marriage is based upon the willingness and capability to engage in coitus, which you claim she didn't.

Why did Mary Get Married?

The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

According to the Protoevangelium of James, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was "chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord." His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

But not so big as to require an immaculate conception. Why stop at Mary? Why not make it even more fancy?

Because making it fancy was not necessary. You've run out of ideas, haven't you?

Nope. Just Greek to English.

Aramaic to Greek to English these days, historically when these dogmas were being devised it was more like Aramaic > Greek > Latin > French > English.

Is it your contention that more than the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic? How...unique. No one else thinks so.

That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

The Anglicans don't care much for infalliability, they think it presumptuous for any mortal to claim to be infallible as well as proven wrong several times throughout history (as I actually demonstrated with my case about historical Catholic anti-semitism in another thread).

The Catholic doctrine of infallibility has never been proven to be wrong through any example despite the efforts of the best theologians and scholars of all stripes. The feat has surely not been accomplished by you, either.

Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

Considering Adam and Eve according to your own infallible teaching were designed to be immortal, feel no pain in childbirth and had no capacity to recognise between good and evil as represented in the tree of knowledge than no, how could they have been? At best they were robots, albeit knowingly flawed ones apparently again also according to your teachings.

IOW, you have not clue. Your education was wasted.

And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies. Therefore, He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

Of course I know what Arianism is, but I am pointing out the paradox that to be human one must be able to experience the full emotional range to be human and yet if the teachings of immaculate conception are to be believed neither Mary or Jesus could have.

Let's take lust for example. It's a biological hardwired reaction that when ones eyes fall onto a member of your preferred sex one feels lust. One can turn away and resist, one can sit drooling over them. That doesn't matter, lust itself is a very human emotion...But it is also a sin.

For Mary to be sinless she couldn't ever experience lust, but if she couldn't experience lust she can't understand the human condition and thus cannot be fully human. She may have theoretical second hand knowledge of lust but no experiential capacity at all.

I'm not drawing from Orthodoxy or Anglicanism for this one, just basic rationalism.

So, in order to be fully human, one has to have experienced sin or at least temptation because we ordinary humans do? Wouldn't that be about the same as saying that in order to be fully recognized as a piece of fine crystal, a water goblet has to have a flaw in it?

WE are the ones who do not know what it means to be fully human because we are captivated by concupiscence and sin.

Further, as you surely know from your illustrious studies, Jesus was tempted. He just said no. The same was true for Mary.