For Gawds Sake...Behave!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Butler, you must be confusing me with Nigel. [:D][;)] 

[/quote]

Why the winker?

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Butler, you must be confusing me with Nigel. [:D][;)] 

[/quote]

Why the winker?

OTBC

[/quote]

Well, "the old boys network" on here may think I''m stirring. But I don''t post on here to stir. And I don''t make up stuff to make a point either[:|]

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

At a bit of a tangent I was grateful for your explanation elsewhere of immaculate conception, about which I had been labouring under a misconception!

Looking it up in the Catholic Encyclopaedia I came across this explanation:

"The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation."

A wonderfully coy phrase, that: "the father had the usual share in its formation."


[/quote]

Blimey Purple how long ago was that, I''d forgotten all about it. 

Before we get the forum police on our case, may I just say that if the CE''s explanation stops there, it''s rather inadequate imo. 

The doctrine of immaculate conception, as I understand it, is based on the idea that "original sin" ie. the deep seated desire to do what we want instead of what God wants, is passed on from parents to children - not through the sex act itself but (to put it in modern language) "through the genes": the same would apply to a test tube baby as to one conceived in the usual way.  The Catholic church believes that God intervened in Mary''s conception in her mother''s womb in order to preserve her from original sin, so that it would be easier for her to say "yes" when God wanted her to be the mother of Christ, and also so that she would not pass on original sin to her son. 

Immaculate conception was only accepted as a formal doctrine of the church in the 20th century, although it had been around for hundreds of years as a sometimes heated debating topic among theologians.  Personally I''d rather it had stayed that way.  You don''t need to believe it in order to venerate Mary as the Mother of God, or to believe that Christ was God made man.  It can also be embraced (so to speak) for all the wrong reasons by people with hangups about sex, or by the spiritually ambitious as a test of "true Catholicism" (a bit like the "true fans" thing, you get the picture . . .).  I go along with it but try not to let it get in the way.

Hope this is helpful.  Now where''s Canary Tom . . . [:D]  More to the point, where''s VIYAG?  He doesn''t seem to post on here any more, got sick of mindless abuse I expect and who can blame him?  If you''re lurking VIYAG, hope all''s well with you [Y]

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

At a bit of a tangent I was grateful for your explanation elsewhere of immaculate conception, about which I had been labouring under a misconception!Looking it up in the Catholic Encyclopaedia I came across this explanation:"The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation."A wonderfully coy phrase, that: "the father had the usual share in its formation."

[/quote]

Blimey Purple how long ago was that, I''d forgotten all about it. 

Before we get the forum police on our case, may I just say that if the CE''s explanation stops there, it''s rather inadequate imo. 

The doctrine of immaculate conception, as I understand it, is based on the idea that "original sin" ie. the deep seated desire to do what we want instead of what God wants, is passed on from parents to children - not through the sex act itself but (to put it in modern language) "through the genes": the same would apply to a test tube baby as to one conceived in the usual way.  The Catholic church believes that God intervened in Mary''s conception in her mother''s womb in order to preserve her from original sin, so that it would be easier for her to say "yes" when God wanted her to be the mother of Christ, and also so that she would not pass on original sin to her son. 

Immaculate conception was only accepted as a formal doctrine of the church in the 20th century, although it had been around for hundreds of years as a sometimes heated debating topic among theologians.  Personally I''d rather it had stayed that way.  You don''t need to believe it in order to venerate Mary as the Mother of God, or to believe that Christ was God made man.  It can also be embraced (so to speak) for all the wrong reasons by people with hangups about sex, or by the spiritually ambitious as a test of "true Catholicism" (a bit like the "true fans" thing, you get the picture . . .).  I go along with it but try not to let it get in the way.

Hope this is helpful.  Now where''s Canary Tom . . . [:D]  More to the point, where''s VIYAG?  He doesn''t seem to post on here any more, got sick of mindless abuse I expect and who can blame him?  If you''re lurking VIYAG, hope all''s well with you [Y]

 

[/quote]Cherub, there is a lot more in the CE, on the lines you''ve stated. The basic point as I understand it is that it is Mary''s soul that is immaculately conceived, and not her body.