Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Nativity of Mary

Expand Messages
  • Giordano Elia Marianus
    Dear Dr. Daniel in the beautiful article on the Nativity of Mary, you added the words.. that this was no more an Immaculate Conception than was the Conception
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 28, 2003
      Dear Dr. Daniel

      in the beautiful article on the Nativity of Mary, you added the words.. that
      this was no more an Immaculate Conception than was the Conception of St John
      {the Baptist}..

      no one has ever suggested that the conception of Saint John was an
      immaculate one.. and in saying this you do not seem to have understood what
      the Immaculate Conception of Mary signifies..

      because just as the ancient texts {which I have read} speak of the promise
      that MARY would be filled with the Holy Spirit from her mother's womb.. so
      also the Immaculate Conception says nothing more than this: that the fact of
      her being filled with the Holy Spirit occurred from the very first moment of
      her natural Conception in Anna's womb .. that is all..

      the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says nothing about the manner of
      the Conception of MARY, which was as with all other human beings through the
      act of conjugal intercourse of Joachim and Anna.. the doctrine of the
      Immaculate Conception does NOT say MARY was conceived differently to any
      other human being..

      it also does NOT say that MARY could not sin during her life.. she could
      have done but chose NOT to, just as the First Eve could have remained
      sinless but freely chose to sin.. the First Eve chose to sin when she could
      have remained sinless, the second Eve, MARY,chose to remain sinless when she
      could have sinned..

      the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not teach that MARY was
      incapable of sin.. it merely AGREES with the ancient texts which say she was
      filled with the Holy Spirit in her mother's womb and specifies that this
      being filled with the Holy Spirit occurred from the first moment of her
      existence in her Mother's womb.. thats all..

      this also makes sense in the light of modern science which tells us that the
      EGG which would FORM the BODY of CHRIST at the ANNUNCIATION when fertilised
      by the Holy Spirit, was already present in germ in the tiny body of MARY
      when she was only a 5 or 6 weeks old FOETUS in her mother's womb.. so that
      since the MATERIAL of both Mother and Son's bodies are so closely linked,
      one would have to say that either we pronounce the Mother All-Pure or we
      pronounce the Son as Impure, which would be impossible.. and that is all the
      doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says..because it only says that as the
      sperm of Joachim and the Egg of Anna joined together, so AT THAT SAME
      MOMENT, the HOLY SPIRIT FILLED THAT NEW BEING WITH HIS GRACE IN SUCH A WAY
      THAT AS ST ANDREW OF CRETE SAYS.. {in his homily on the Nativity of Mary}
      THERE WAS IN MARY AS IF A "NEW CREATION"..

      so the graces of justification which are applied to each of us at Baptism,
      that is after our existence has begun.. were applied to MARY AT THE VERY
      BEGINNING OF HER EXISTENCE, IN ANTICIPATION OF HER ROLE AS MOTHER OF GOD..
      AND IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INFINITE MERITS OF HER SON.. but apart from that
      one occurrence, she was in every other way like us.. capable of sin and
      capable of choosing between right and wrong..

      it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE that the MATERIAL from which CHRIST WOULD FORM HIS
      HUMAN BODY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVER EVEN FOR ONE INSTANT UNDER THE DOMINION OF
      SIN .. BECAUSE THAT MATERIAL FROM WHICH HIS BODY WAS TO BE FORMED WAS ALSO
      TO BE JOINED TO THE DIVINITY THROUGH THE HYPOSTATIC UNION.. AND GOD CANNOT
      BE JOINED TO SIN..

      also it is impossible that the second Adam be inferior to the First.. so
      just as the first Adam's body was made from sinless earth by God so also the
      second Adam was made from a totally sinless egg in MARY's WOMB.. but since
      her eggs were already forming only a few WEEKS after her Conception in
      Anna's womb, then even without the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception we
      would have to say that the HOLY SPIRIT must have filled MARY with his
      blessing in the first month of her existence otherwise Christ would risk
      having to unite his Divinity to an UNWORTHY MATERIAL IN MARY'S WOMB..

      it is actually impossible that the material in MARY's womb could have at ANY
      time been under the influence of sin, because then we would have to say that
      the egg from which Jesus was to take his humanity had been at one time under
      the influence of sin, and therefore under the influence of Satan, which is
      an impossibility..

      HOW could the SON OF GOD have taken a material from MARY's womb, from which
      to make his body, which had EVEN FOR ONE SECOND been under the law of sin
      ??? no saint, no father, no bishop, no monk or hermit has ever preached
      such a thing.. it is a totally unheard of proposition.. so that one is
      forced to the conclusion that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a
      NECESSARY CLARIFICATION of what the ancient texts ALREADY preached, namely
      that MARY was filled with the HOLY SPIRIT from her mother's womb.. ..

      with all sincerity

      from your little brother in Christ

      giordano elia marianus t.o.s.m.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.