I'm sure other members of the godless media made this same mistake all over the country. But the only place I spotted it was in USA Today. When they reviewed "The Nativity Story," they described Mary's pregnancy as "the immaculate conception." Nope. For Christians, the Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of MARY - who was born without original sin because she was going to bear Jesus. (She's the only one in history, other than Adam, Eve and Jesus.) Her own pregnancy is referred to as the Virgin Birth. No biggie, USA Today -- most Christians get this wrong as well.
NOTE: Priv8Pete says I should refer to Catholics only, since most Protestants (the heathens) don't accept the concept of Mary being born without original sin. Fair enough, but I strongly think he's wrong when he suggests that Protestants have taken the name for that Catholic doctrine and re-defined it to mean exactly what people often confuse it to mean: the birth of Jesus by a virgin. Here's the Wikipedia discussion and here's the Pope's pronouncement on the Immaculate Conception in the 1854 (one of only two times the Pope has spoken with the weight of infallibility) and I can't find any mention anywhere of an alternate meaning to this Catholic concept. Sorry, but it's ours and you interpret it wrong and you'll have to find me a reputable reference to prove me mistaken. Talk to your religios advisedr and get back to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Actually, that would be for Catholics that Mary is born without sin. For the Protestant sects of Christianity Immaculate Conception is Jesus being conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit with the Virgin Birth being the actual birth of Jesus.
Hmm, are you sure? I'll grant you that many Christian faiths don't accept the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but I believe very strongly that you're wrong in thinking they've taken the phrase for that Catholic doctrine and re-defined it to mean exactly what many people confuse it to mean. I can't find any ref to Protestants claiming the phrase Immaculate Conception to referring to the Birth of Jesus. Can you?
You may be right that the term "Immaculate Conception" is not explicitly used in Protestant circles. However, with or without that terminology, the Protestant churchs (aside from perhaps the Lutherans or Episcopalians) hold pretty firm to Mary not being born without sin and that conception by the Holy Spirit is what allowed Jesus to be born without sin. Perhaps the term is something along the lines of "divine conception" but you get the idea.
Oh, I see. You don't object to my (correct) definition of Immaculate Conception. You object to my use of the word Christians when you think I should have said merely Catholics, since your offshoot of catholicism doesn't accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Nonetheless, my use fo the term is accurate and USA Today's use is wrong. You have a diff understanding of the birth of Jesus but that doesn't change the fact that USA Today used the term Immaculate Conception to refer to the birth of Jesus (a common mistake even among Catholics) when in fact it refers specifically and only to the birth of Mary without original sin. You're saying you disagree with the theology but that doesn't change the facts as to what that term means. And since catholics make up by FAR the bulk of Christians in the world and some other offshoots DO accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception, I'd argue Christians and Catholics could be interchangeable but that would be obnoxious and perhaps it's an argument for another day.
In short, you don't accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception. But you don't use that term at all, I'm sure, rather than your initial claim that it had a different meaning for you.
I think we're on the same page. You're saying the conception of Mary is the Immaculate Conception, which I disagree with since there is no Biblical evidence of this. I do believe that Jesus was immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit, so I do believe in an immaculate conception just not the one that the Catholic church has decided upon.
I guess this brings up a question that we readers of the blogosphere might have. Why does the Catholic church believe that Mary was born without sin? Is there a scriptural burden of proof for this theological position? I've read the New Testament and the Old Testament prophesy dozens of times over and never been persuaded of Mary being anything but the chosen descendant of David who was God's vessel for the Virgin Birth.
I linked to the Pope's delivery of the concept of Immaculate Conception in my posting. There is no direct Biblical basis; they just say, hey, the vessel for Jesus must be pure so they posit that Mary was born without original sin. It's all part of the cult of Mary, which I dislike since it distorts her and all women (the best mother is a virgin, refs to the "ever-virgin Mary" in our prayers, etc because sex is ugly and so on). But I must nitpick one more time. Whether you believe in it or not, the term Immaculate Conception stands for one thing and one thing only, just as the Law Of Thermodynamics stands for one thing and "The Rocky movies" stands for one thing and one thing only. Theologically speaking, an "Immaculate Conception" refers only to the birth of Mary without original sin -- you may not believe in it, but you can't use that term to refer to the birth of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or me or anyone else without completely getting it wrong, just like E=MC2 stands for one thing and not, say the Universal Constant. We can debate whether we agree with a concept but we can't use the standard term for one thing to refer to something else. I'm pretty sure your faith wouldn't hijack the term Immaculate Conception to refer to the birth of Jesus, but check into it and if Im wrong please let me know. Am I being schmucky?
Oh and Catholics aren't wedded to the Bible as the source of all our teachings and beliefs, so we don't need to back up concepts or ideas by pointing to this or that passage. We often do, but it's not necessary and it wouldn't be a sign of weakness in a concept of our faith to say, 'But where does it say or suggest that in the Bible?' We just don't care cause we came first. It's OUR Bible, darn it. (What? The Torah? The Five Books Of Moses? No idea what you're talking about. Gotta run.)
I agree with you and in my posts you'll see where I make the disctinction between the proper term capitalized and use of the same words to relate a similar but different meaning. As you say though, there is a muddling of the actual definition of the term and it's not something I have ever sat down and thought about. You are correct in the official definition, but you'd also have to admit that Mary becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit would be an immaculate event even though it would not be the Immaculate Conception. Can we all just agree that Franco Harris caught the Immaculate Reception and be done with it?
Post a Comment