Talk:Immaculate Conception/Archive 1

Anon
I changed "thus leaving Roman Catholics freedom to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy;" to "free" to believe in it or not. You don't, generally leave someone freedom, you give it. Thus, you can "leave them free to believe in it," or you can "give them freedom to believe in it or not." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.160.250 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I.C.
Entry said: Catholic doctrine that the Virgin Mary was free of sin at the time that Jesus was conceived.  Nope. Changed to reflect fact that doctrine teaches about HER conception, not about his (feel free to believe it or not, but please, please, don't confuse it with the Virgin Birth!). --MichaelTinkler


 * For a confirmation see . --FvdP

Text says: ''Immaculate Conception was announced by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus, published December 8, 1854 (the Feast of the Immaculate Conception), speaking ex cathedra using the doctrine of papal infallibility. ''. That's inconsistent: infallibility was defined as dogma only in 1870. Or was the 1854 declaration later declared as covered by infallibility ? Either way the sentence is incorrect (it implies Pius IX could in 1854 officially rely on infallibility) and should be precised. So I'm removing the last part, "speaking...". --FvdP


 * [1] The Catholic view is that the dogma of Papal infallibility as defined in 1870 is simply a restatement of a doctrine that has always been in effect, and [2] the 1854 definition of Pius IX of the Immaculate Conception was clearly the model for the 1870 declaration of which doctrines would be considered infallible: namely that they be ex cathedra, intended  to bind the whole Church, and demanding internal assent from all the faithful to the teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception.  -- Someone else 01:37 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Good point. But was the "doctrine of infallibility" well-enough defined in 1854 so that it could be seen, at that time, as applying to the Immaculate Conception dogma proclamation ? --FvdP


 * Well, I have no doubt that Pius IX had no question about it: he was infallibly defining an infallible doctrine, binding on all Christians.  I think the reason infallibility originally got a mention in the article is that the Immaculate Conception is pretty much universally agreed to have been an exercise of the ability of the Pope to define dogma infallibly. -- Someone else 02:09 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

It's OK with me if a mention of infallibility comes back in the main article, with a precision about why infallibility can apply before 1870. But because I have almost no background knowledge of the question, I'm not sure enough of myself to find a historically correct way to explain the above. For instance, who was accepting infallibility in 1854 ? Many/most catholics ? Several/many/most/all officials ? Surely not all catholics. ----FvdP 22:48 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Infallibility relates to the verity of the statements in relation to life before birth and after death. When speaking of the Immaculate conception, keep in mind that the issue is related directly to non-fallen Nature and fallen nature.

... a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery ... (Revelation xii, 1-2) rather than: ... a woman sitting on a scarlet beast... arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication... (Revelation xvii, 3-4)

This is not Catholic rocket science. Virgin Nature cooperates in miracles, unless they are a creation out of nothing, water to wine, loaves to fishes, after anguished waiting for this Immaculate Virgin looking to the cosmos to give Immaculate birth to Christ child. -- the Pope was/is positive. User:Another  Nov 22, 2003

We can question even Pope Pius IX's belief in his own infallibility. He first pronounced on the doctrine at a service at St Peter's, a few minutes after twice saying I don't know. The emphasis of the decree proclaiming the dogma, is on preserving the glory of the Roman Catholic church. Cacadores (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Islam
Islam does not teach that Muhammad was conceived and lives his whole life without sin. Rather, that an angel removed his sins from him (in a physical miraculous act) before he could recite the Qu'ran. I will have to look up the specific reference in Islamic writings, but this is what I read in my Islamic Studies class. Also Jesus and Mary are both believed to be sinless in Islam, and in fact that only sinless humans that ever lived.

More on Protestants
"Protestantism rejects the doctrine because it is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, and because Protestantism has less regard for the clarification of dogmatic theology."

One major reason many (but not all) Protestants reject the doctrine is that they reject the doctrine of original sin in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure what "less regard for the clarification of dogmatic theology" means. Many Protestants definitely delight in "hair-splitting" clarification of theology. They just do not have regard for decrees from Catholic authority as having any weight in the matter. Jdavidb 17:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * One major reason many (but not all) Protestants reject the doctrine is that they reject the doctrine of original sin in the first place.
 * Pull the other one, it's got bells on! Read any Luther or Calvin lately?  I agree that the bit about a regard for clarification... is confusing -- I'd dearly love to know what the person writing this was thinking, to clear it up a bit.  Wooster 16:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's clarity on Luther and Calvin believing in the Immaculate Conception http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-&p=Luther+Calvin++%22Immaculate+Conception%22


 * Uhuh... that wasn't my point. I'm aware that Luther and Calvin both believed in the Perpetual Virginity (Immaculate Concpetion, therefore, comes as no shock, although I didn't know this).  I was responding to the accusation that "many" Protestants don't believe in original sin -- by citing Luther and Calvin as prime examples of ones who did.  For sure, some don't, especially in this "modern" era; but the historic Protestant position has been one of accepting the doctrine of original sin.  A rejection of the doctrine of original sin is, historically, an aberrant and minority viewpoint.  Wooster 23:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Luther clearly did believe in the Perpetual Virginity and a form of the Immaculate Conception, and while Calvin defended the Perpetual V., I can find no evidence for or against the Immaculate C. but would tend to think he would consider it a spurious doctrine since he was more scrupulous about having exegetical backing for his positions. --Flex 14:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problem: When I look up the Bible references cited as supporting this doctrine ( Romans 5, Wisdom 2:24, I Corinthians 15:21 ) I don't find any references to Mary at all. What's going on ?

They support the doctrine only when interpreted from a Catholic standpoint, using Tradition to interpret Scripture (which is standard for Catholicism). The Immaculate Conception is not a doctrine you can derive yourself just from reading the Bible, which is why few Protestant denominations adhere to it.

It seems that this page should make some mention of Bernadette Soubirous, Catherine Laboure, as well as the Ark of the Covenant. Please see http://www.udayton.edu/mary/respub/winter2004.html which might be a good external link.

 I have to confirm my "Immaculate Ignorance". I consider myself a well-read, certainly theologically aware, and to a limited extent formally theologically trained, Protestant. It was only when I read this article (and found the point clarified in this Talk page) that I realised that what I thought was the Immaculate Conception was actually the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. I can only imagine that I am not alone. I'd be pleased to put in a piece that would succinctly clarify the Protestant misunderstanding for both sides of this divide.

My plan would be to:
 * take the current 4th and 5th paras to below History of the Doctrine;
 * make a new heading Other Views; (because this allows more that just a Protestant view)
 * rearrange the existing material into the variations - Orthodox and Protestant;
 * insert the following into the Protestant section.

Formal Protestant theology rejects the doctrine because it is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, and because Protestantism has less regard for the development of dogmatic theology. Informally among Protestants, there is general ignorance of most Roman Catholic Doctrine, to the extent that the Virgin Birth is normally either or both mistaken for or used interchangeably with Immaculate Conception. Without wanting to hurt the feelings of Catholic friends, most would assert that Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary defy their life experience and seem implausible at best.

''Protestants rarely praise Mary, which Orthodox and Catholics routinely do. ...''

Peter Ellis 03:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) 

'Protestants' who reject the doctrine of original sin are either not Protestants or are fictions of the imagination of Romanist apologists (such as seem to write most Wikipedia articles on subjects such as the immaculate conception). As Protestantism (as expounded by Luther and his followers and all the Reformed theologians mislabeled as 'Calvinists') is a revitalisation of the theology laid down in Scripture and set out in Augustine or Hippo and many of the other Western Fathers, Original Sin is at the very heart of Protestantism. The doctrines of justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone and of total human depravity and the need for the unmerited grace of God are entirely based on Original Sin - as I say, any Protestant who denies Original Sin is not a Protestant. Protestants do not give prayers to Mary because for Protestants, shew has no role in the economy of salvation. As to the view that 'Protestantism has less regard for the development of dogmatic theology' - this is just hogwash - go to any decent library and you will find volume after volume of Protestant dogmatic theology. You may disagree with it, but don't write lies. User:Come Out of her my People —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.51.38 (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Economic reasons for the Immaculate Conception edict.

The 'Immaculate Conception' should be seen as part of a general and increasing glorification of Mary within Roman Catholic teaching, as steared by their Popes. Roman Catholics are encouraged to appeal to the motherly Mary to intercede for them with a Jesus portrayed to them as an often angry God. Intercession is an important concept encouraged within Roman Cathlocism, because it makes priests, backed by their Pope, appear to have the keys to salvation (hence the Vatican Key symbol) and therefore increases the importance of the heirachy in the minds of its followers. Putting it bluntly, it does not serve the Roman Catholic hierachy to allow for individuals to believe they can appeal to Jesus directly, since then they wouldn't depend on the priests who take payment from relatives for masses sung to save the recently dead, or themselves or who accept payment for candles to give for Mary's intercession. This is an economic theme that it might be possible to develop within the article, since historically it has had adherants and provides an alternative explanation for this particular papal edict. It would need some research and quotations from its 19th and 20th century adherants and examination of the Roman Catholics' own regulations encouraging payment for salvation, e.g. Can. 945 §1. Cacadores (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC) ___________

Misunderstandings
''There is a widespread misunderstanding of the term immaculate conception. Many people, even Catholics, believe this refers to the conception of Jesus by Mary. Nearly every time this term is used in television or in popular culture, it is in reference to the conception of Jesus by Mary.''

If most people interpret a term to mean one thing, by the nature of language and conceptualization, isn't it the meaning of the term that usually changes rather than the term itself?

Many modern words and phrases in English descend from archaic versions with separate meanings. Just look through any dictionary's etymology entries, many words are derived from misunderstandings.

If this "misunderstanding" is so widespread that nearly every time [it's] used ... in popular culture it is in reference to virgin birth, doesn't that mean that this article ought to address that meaning in addition to the official dogma, rather than simply sloughing it off as wrong? That doesn't seem like NPOV to me, it seems like an explicitly Catholic perspective.
 * Hum... the problem with your analysis - as I see it - is that, to most Catholics and many other Christians, the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth are historical events. Notwithstanding the varying opinions on English as a living language, if people started referring to the Munich Olympics kidnapping debacle as 'The Holocaust', it would NOT be considered part of the normal evolution of the English language, but rather a gross historical inaccuracy.--Anchoress 05:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked out this page to see if Wikipedia "got it right," which I am glad to see it did. "Immaculate Conception," as the name of a Catholic dogma, does indeed refer to the conception of Mary, not to the Virgin Birth. It is perfectly NPOV to point out that the term is widely misused.

The issue is not that people are "interpreting" the term in a new way, it is that they are unaware of its meaning, and are consistently confusing or conflating it with another term, "virgin birth". This is simply an error, and I hope I'm not going out on a limb when I say that conscientious people should correct errors.

A less religiously charged example of this phenomenon is the word "peruse," which is generally used, incorrectly, to mean "scan quickly," and seldom used correctly, to mean "read thoroughly."

That people misuse words, and that the meanings of words therefore change, is a fact, but that does not mean that persistent errors should not be corrected, nor that the process of linguistic drift should be accelerated to accommodate the majority of users. Silarius

Rephrase?
This is from the first paragraph of Immaculate_Conception:


 * These famous churchmen had problems with the doctrine, due to the medieval understanding of the physical workings of human conception and implantation in the womb. They did not believe that the soul was placed in the body at the moment of conception.

These statements suggest that modern knowledge of the physical workings of human conception would necessarily lead to a conclusion that the soul was placed in the body at the moment of conception, which (though accepted by the Catholic Church) is not obviously true. Can anyone think of a way to put this differently while retaining the core of the point? --Saforrest 00:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a shot at rewording,to clarify that this "understanding" was a matter of conception (diff. meaning!) and not lack of scientific knowledge. I think this reasonably expresses the point. - Bert 171.159.64.10 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Who are you, 64.150.0.1, and why did you put "Serrgio Rules! No, Really" on this page? 66.69.147.209 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Scriptural sources
Though I am no expert, I take issue with the section entitled "scriptural sources", especially the second paragraph ("The Church fathers,..."). Is there any indication that these passages should be (or even could be) construed as referring to the immaculate conception? I honestly don't see how stating that life came from Mary just like death came from Eve is indicative of a belief in the immaculate conception. Would it be possible to at least mention where this interpretation of the Church fathers' writings came from? — Damienlittre 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this part: "though it does contradict Scripture, which points to death through Adam and salvation through Christ (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 5:11,12)", as the statement "death came through Eve, life came from Mary" does not contradict Scripture's statement of death coming through Adam and life through Christ. Eve tempted Adam to sin, just as Christ was only conceived because Mary gave her fiat to the Angel. Scripture speaks of it directly while St. Jerome speaks of it indirectly. I'm sure there's some source for that, although I don't know the Fathers well enough to find it, so I'll leave that on the talk page for now. PaulGS 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Painting
The picture above and right is of the Assumption of Mary, not of the Immaculate Conception. — 70.226.196.83 13:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * true it has nothing to with it, but then again the whole issue is weird so why now heap weird on weird. FrummerThanThou 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We had trouble finding a painting of Mary's parents conceiving her. — Walloon 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Epstein&#39;s Mother 11:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a traditional Eastern icon of the embrace of Joachim and Anna, which is pretty much exactly that! Here is a small blurry example: http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/store.ItemDetails/SKU/13109/imageSize/Lg/index.htm

Mlouns 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose any painting of the Madonna during her lifetime ought to be adequate, since she was considered "immaculate" throughout her life, not simply at the time of her conception. Indeed, her Assumption, bodily and uncorrupted, is an explicit example of her immacualte nature, and so it's not actually so inappropriate, although it is a little confusing, especially as there is a separate feast-day dedicated to the Assumption, too.Cravenmonket 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki articel Roman Catholic Marian Art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Marian_art#Depiction_of_the_Immaculate_Conception addresses this issue. Images of the Immaculate Conception do not portray the event but the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph
At the moment the article is featured so I don't expect the tag to stay on, but if you know a thing or two about this subject please see to the lead paragraph and FrummerThanThou 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Solemnity
Since the reform of the Catholic Church's calendar after the Second Vatican Council, the ranking of celebrations has been simplified. They are now classed as solemnity, feast, obligatory memorial, and optional memorial. Since the celebration of the Immaculate Conception ranks as a solemnity, I have changed the references from "feast" to "solemnity."68.65.122.80 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a Solemnity on the current Roman calendar, but it's a I Class Feast on the 1962 calendar, which is still in use, to some traditional Catholics, it's a Double of the I Class, and I have no idea what the ranking is on the Eastern calendars. Rather than specify all the rankings (and get into that debate), I've changed it to "feast", with a lower-case "f". PaulGS 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the development of the feast
I think it would be useful to discuss the development of the feast of the Immaculate Conception in greater detail because the pre-Pius IX Missals of the Roman and other Uses of the Roman rite DO NOT touch on the doctrine. The Medival Sarum Missal, for example, doesn't mention whether or not Mary was conceived with or without original sin, nor did the Roman Missal until Pius IX proclaimed the dogma. The Immaculate Conception may have been a pious belief prior to Pius IX, but it was not the focus of the feast of the Conception of the BVM. For the sake of accuracy, I think mention should be made that the feast of the Immaculate Conception began with Pius IX in the 1850s.--FidesetRatio 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Protestantism?
Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are both discussed under the haeding "Protestant". This is POV and wrong and needs to be fixed. -- SECisek 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Anglicanism falls under many definitions of protestantism, but Eastern Orthodoxy certainly doesn't. 131.172.99.15 01:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

It is solemn holy day for many Anglicans and, protestant or not, it is misleading to discuss them alongside Baptists and Presbyterians. -- SECisek 08:48, 21 August 2007

It is not a 'solemn holy day' for Anglicans. Cacadores (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)

Mistranslation
http://accurapid.com/journal/18review.htm

"Mistranslation is plentiful, painful and powerful, whether it shapes our way of seeing the world through the Bible or the bibles of our times—films. In an American cult movie, "You'll get the pink slip for Christmas" is translated as "You'll get red underpants in Santa Claus' stocking." It must be a joke, I hear you say. No, I'm afraid, it is not. The 'pink slip' (a notice of dismissal, American slang) has metamorphosed into 'red underpants' in a famous action movie seen by millions and millions of people. Thanks to the translator's error, they envisage the hero in a pair of red underpants, not as getting fired by Christmas.

Albeit the difference between getting fired or getting a pair of red underpants may not be quite as substantial as the difference between a virgin and a non-virgin birth, it still does serious damage to the source text. Both examples above illustrate relatively simple nonetheless fundamental mistakes in translation. Objective mistakes. But a mistake is a mistake only when you become aware of it. Otherwise mistakes become part and parcel of our ongoing discursified thinking—of our language and thus symbolic cultural system. As the virgin birth has, and no doubt the red underpants will."

Slant towards Roman Catholicism
This article has an obvious slant in favour of the idea/concept of immaculate conception. This is particularly obvious in some cases: Scriptural Sources is an entire section devoted to sources taken from the bible, and yet, there are no verses there which contradict the view of immaculate conception! I should think that there would be verse somewhere, which argue against it, because there isn't a clear agreement among the denominations which would surely be there if the bible was completely one-minded about it.

The opening section is also prejudiced! Roman Catholics are referred to half a dozen times in the lead, and the other denominations are completely neglected. It is too long, there are some points which need to be integrated into the rest of the sections, or else removed.

This article needs a lot of work, and will require people who are willing and able to improve it. Jame§ugrono 23:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an article about a Roman Catholic belief, so what's the problem with the emphasis being on their understanding of it? InfernoXV (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with explaining in full what Catholics believe about the IC and why they believe it, but James is right that it should be balanced by explaining that other denominations don't believe it (and as far as I know, no denomination except the RC's do) and why not. We also have to be careful to avoid OR when quoting scripture. We can't say "Catholics believe in the IC because the Bible says this-and-that" without providing a source to a Catholic scholar making that argument. Just because a Wikipedia editor feels a certain Bible verse supports the teaching doesn't mean we can say it does. I doubt there are any Bible verses that can be or have been interpreted as arguing against the teaching of the IC; those who don't believe it reject it because the Bible doesn't talk about it, not because the Bible denies it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weasel words also need to be removed. There's a couple I've noticed - I'm going through the "Scriptural sources" section at the moment, as that section seems to be a little biased. There's a paragraph, and a block quote or two, which presents an opinion as fact. With these religious matters, care should be taken not to assert that anyone's opinion is a fact. Make sure any assertions are cited, to a reliable source. Make sure it is made clear that opinions are, in fact, opinions. Jame§ugrono 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

'

Re: Bias and Editing issues.

There are three main areas that need editing urgently, unless this article is to remain heavily biased towards Roman Catholic official dogma. We should also be careful of using the term Catholic 'belief', bearing in mind than we have no opinion surveys at all to determine Catholic belief. Roman Catholic teaching is ultimately determined by the 'infallable' Roman Pope, not necessarily by the beliefs of his followers. In practice, you can be a Roman Catholic and not believe in the more theoretical doctrines. Thus, Roman Catholic priest are taught to follow the instructions of their superiors, not to give personal interpretations. Pius IX outlawed argumentation against it but had little control over the detailed beliefs of his followers. The term 'Immaculate Conception', though, is of interest to all Christian churches and therefore should be reported dispassionately.

1. Scripture The Bible is scripture. But the paragraphs in it that could pertain to an 'Immaculate Conception' are not mentioned. This should be recognised as a Roman Catholic bias and allows Roman Catholics to define the concept in their own way. The idea that we cannot talk about the bible unless we find a Roman Catholic writer to interpret it for us is non-sence: actually that very restriction is a Roman Catholic restriction! Readers should be aware of a fact little known outside Roman Cathlocism: that is, that Roman Catholics and their priests are not allowed to interpret the Bible on their own: they have to follow latest church teaching. However, there is no reason why the bible cannot here be quoted where lines appear relevent. There is no reason why it cannot be quoted without interpretation. The complete absence of biblical quotes in this section is therefore very worrying.

2. Protestants The section on Protestant beliefs contain argumentation and attempted rebuttals from 'Catholics'. Some of the rebuttal sentences are not even introduced as such, but appear to be presented as fact. The idea of placing rebuttals in the Protestant section only, is a biased act.

3. Also: There should be more clarity on the term 'Catholic'. The 'Immaculate Conception' was defined as doctrine by a Roman Catholic Pope in the 19th century. The term 'Catholic' is not only a name but a claim to universality. Other Christian churches make the same claim, for example the Church of England in its psalms, which can therefore also contain 'Catholics' as worshippers. The normal way to preserve the distinction, without undue imposition, is to refer to those Catholics submitting to the Roman Pope, as 'Roman Catholics' or at least to use the adjectve 'Roman' for occasional clarity.

I propose: a) Including bible quotes relevant to the subject in the 'Scripture' section, but avoiding personal interpretation. b) Removing the rebuttals from the Protestant section to accord with other sections, or, having a new section called 'Disagreements' and leaving the Protestant section as a simple statement of their doctrine. c) Distinguishing Roman Catholics from other Catholic beliefs by using the adjective 'Roman' at least once in each paragraph which uses the term 'Catholic'.

I would be grateful for any comments.

Cacadores (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Cacadores


 * It is really simple actually:


 * It is really no big deal to change belief to "teachings" or "doctrine". I do not think it will make a big difference anyway, because belief in this context usually means what they are supposed to beleive, given that there is no access to their heads.


 * As for Immaculate Conception being a mostly Catholic item, what is new? It is. And the article starts by saying that. It is somewhat like accusing most priests in Rome of having a Catholic slant in their thinking. They do, and they call themselves as such.


 * As for bible refs, I am no expert on it, but there seem to be very few, and as MOST Mariology protestants do not like the Catholic extensions. Again, that is as well known as the number of weddings Larry King has had. I see no news there. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

other religions
this is too focused on Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as you aren't a user trying to make a point, then it would seem proper for this article to be focussed on Christianity - as far as I know, this is a Christian concept. However, if you feel like adding references to immaculate conception in other belief systems, there's no problem. Jame§ugrono 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * it is not only a christian concept, it is an extremely common religious concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.170 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Believing the mother involved a virgin birth was free from Original Sin is a common religious concept? I can't think of any outside of Catholicism that is that specific.  Are you perhaps confusing the term with "virgin birth", which IS quite common? Caligulathegod (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Caligulathegod; people get this confused with virgin conception, and then see bias when it isn't used as such. From what I have researched immaculate conception is pretty much limited to the Catholic interpretation. Immaculate meaning free from defect and used in the context of sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.212.96 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Argument from Greek grammar
I removed the following from the Scriptural sources heading; not only is it unattributed, but it seems based on a misunderstanding of Greek grammar.
 * The English translation, "Hail, Full of Grace," or "Hail, Favored One," is based on the Greek of Luke 1:28, "χαίρε, κεχαριτωμένη" (chaire kecharitomene), a phrase which can most literally be translated: "Rejoice, you who have been graced". The latter word, kecharitomene, is the Passive voice, Present Perfect participle of the verb "to grace" in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with  results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state. The angel's salutation does not refer to the Incarnation of Christ in Mary's womb, as he proceeds to say: "thou shalt conceive in thy womb…" (Luke 1:31).

Er, no. The perfect participle "indicates a completed action with results continuing into the present - of the speaker, not the reader." (Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 279) If there was a citation, I'd be more accepting, but from my basic understanding of Greek grammar deriving conclusions about how far into the past or future Mary was graced from this passage is illegitimate. TrickyApron (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know Greek, so I don't know whether kecharitomene is indeed passive, femimine, and vocative, but if it is, then it can only be referring to Mary here. Participles don't have to refer to the speaker, so I'd like to know more about what that book's saying. I'll leave the passage out for now while I look for a citation, but I'd like to know whether the claimed voice, tense, gender, and case are correct. PaulGS (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * kecharitomeneh is indeed a perfect passive feminine vocative participle, so it does refer to Mary. By "speaker" what's meant is that the completed action and the continuing results are relative to the present time of the situation - the conversation between Mary and the Angel. So Mary could have been graced one second, one day, or twenty years before the conversation, and the results of being graced have consequences for "now" - the now of the conversation, not necessarily the future of Mary's life, nor the now when Luke is being written or read. Interpreting every perfect participle in Greek using the seemingly "simple" methodology this paragraph advocates would be disastrous. But I'm sure real Catholic scholars have nuanced, intelligent exegesis of this passage, if one could be found to cite. TrickyApron (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sentences cut from Scriptural Sources
I cut the following sentences for not being well developed / no longer fitting in the argument:
 * In addition "Blessed shall be the fruit of thy womb" is a reward for obedience to God by keeping the commandments.
 * In support to this doctrine, it also does not appear fit that Christ, God-incarnate, should be born in sinful vessel.
 * The Immaculate Conception also compares to the original righteousness of Adam and Eve. Also, as she is coneived without sin, Catholics use it in the argument that life starts at conception.

I have no problem with their presence if rewritten / developed / cited. TrickyApron (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Velasquez picture
Can Diego Velasquez' picture The Immaculate Conception, in the National Gallery, London be added as an illustration to the article, by someone who understands how to check out the copyright position and technically how to add the picture. I'm sure everyone will agree that it makes a splendid illustration and addition to the article. See http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG6424. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Mariology, Views of the Saints, and take it from there. It is a beautiful piece of art. I agree. History2007 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I added it. For your consideration: The size, the placement in the article, and the direction of the float.
 * I added it at 300px since that is what the other image was at, but I could easily see the lead picture being bigger than the other.
 * I put it in the start of section one, leaving the other in the lead. I could also see it in section four, "Scriptural sources", or I could see it in the lead, with the other image in section one or four.
 * I let it float to the right. This makes the text easier to read, and that's a big one to me, but of course, letting it float left is also an option.
 * I'm comfortable with the choices I made, but I'm not a graphical designer, so anyone with a good eye please overrule. :) &mdash; the Sidhekin (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with it too, but am also not a graphic designer. The Murillo is also a wonderful painting. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As a general comment, I find these pictures to be too large for the page, although they look great as paintings. I think the Murillo on the page Acts of Reparation to the Virgin Mary may seem too small, but it fits on the page. If the pictures on this Immaculate conception page get reduced by 15% they will look better. But no big deal really. History2007 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Free Will
Wait, so did Mary have free will, or not? She certainly seems like a normal, choosing person in the Bible, who even has doubts and is afraid. And yet, apparently, God can magically simply make people not be born without grace. So why not just do it for everyone and save his Son the trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientific issues
I fail to see how the section "scientific issues" has anything at all to do with the conception of Mary without sin.

"Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by normal sexual intercourse (Christian tradition identifies her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne), should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus."

Without further objection, I feel it ought to be removed. 72.74.108.184 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. I removed it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the irrelevance, and hence with the removal. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the many misconceptions around the subject, I think the point - probably differently worded - is worth including. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if you open that door, the debate will last forever and a day. If there is to be debate, it should be in a different forum. E.g. if you look at efficacy of prayer it is a separate page I set up for scientific views on prayer. There was endless debate about it on the prayer page before that. Scientists need to be heard, but the forum needs to be scientific. The page on Shroud of Turin is another example. On these issues the users generally have made their minds up about God and its implications long ago. The evidence etc. is generally by the debater interpreted based on the initial belief. Hence let us not get a debate on this page, before the God debate has been concluded elsewhere. And my gueess is that the God debate will take forever and two days. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it was I who put it in the wrong article. I've moved to the article Virgin Birth of Jesus where it is more appropriate. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What debate? The point is merely that Mary had two biological parents in the normal way, which many will be confused about, in the perennial mix-up between IC & VB. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, it has better wording than the initial insertion anyway. In case someone ever types "scientific objection" or "disprove" etc. about either virgin birth or immaculate conception, please require them to read Falsifiability twice and the entire text of the book Conjectures and Refutations at least three times before they type anything about it again. Thanks History2007 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah there's rally no scientific debate here. I just (lamely) put it in the wrong article. Sorry to have caused a fuss. Cheers. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tacked "Mary was not the product of a Virgin Birth herself; Christian tradition identifies her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne." ionto the end of para 1 of "Common misinterpretations" - not controversial, I hope. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the biblical verse "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" directly dispute the IC? Jeff McVicker (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because if "all" literally referred to every human being, it would include Christ, who was without sin. Other parts of the chapter refer to Jews and Greeks, and asks whether only the Jews need saving, and not the Gentiles, but no, both have sinned. I don't have a Catholic source offhand that discusses this, but maybe someone can find one. PaulGS (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Bible, it is not clear that Jesus never sinned, espcially if you include the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cacadores (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"The immaculate conception of everyone"
The end of the Protestantism section read:

"Some Protestant groups of more recent origin, such as the Restoration Movement, do not believe in original sin. Consequently, they believe in the immaculate conception of everyone, not only of Mary, though this is considered heresy by most other churches and Christian communities."

I deleted the latter sentence and reworded the implication as I understand it, being a Restoration Movement theologian. It is a non sequitur that not believing in Augustin's doctrine of original sin is to believe in "the immaculate conception of everyone." The article itself specifies:

"The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace."

The immaculate conception only exists conceptually within the frame of original sin. Therefore, not to believe in original sin rules out "the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind" and subsequently rules out preservation from that lack (i.e., immaculate conception). If one believes that Augustin's original sin does not exist, there is no need for Mary (or anyone else, much less everyone else) to be preserved from it and filled with divine grace at conception.

Gemckinzie (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Some more literature

 * Online, abridged version of "The Mystical City of God" taken from wikisite Maria de Agreda. Tables of Contents, Chapter VI. The immaculate conception.

According to my opinion there should be a link to the chapter within the article, or a Weblink or some other information. It is worthwile reading.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.225 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like María de Agreda's writings, but you should be aware that they are subject to debate among scholars of opposing views and starting a thread on that is an invitation to a lot of discussion. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of the dogma
Who wrote this? It reads more like a Sunday school lesson than an article in an encyclopedia. For example, there is a sentence - a whole sentence, no less, that goes "Christ's redemption frees all humanity from Original Sin." Says who? Wouldn't it be better to say (if deemed necessary at all): "Christianity holds that Christ's redemption etc" or "The Church teaches that etc". In fact, I am not even sure that any of this section is much use. Richardhearnden (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a sentence to the top of the paragraph to that effect. It was a simple fix. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Islam and the Immaculate Conception
It would be interesting to do a bit of non-original research of Islam and the Immaculate Conception, since the Muslim religion already affirms the dogma of the Virgin birth. There are a few minority sources here and there that seem to suggest that there is already a tradition of accepting the dogma within the Islamic world. ADM (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Enoch and the Immaculate Conception
There are apocryphal stories about Enoch being the same as the archangel Metatron, and Metatron being related to the Holy Spirit somehow. Anyways, I was looking into modern-day people that call themselves Enochian, and many so-called Enochian people do believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and do agree that it has a hidden relationship to Enoch. ADM (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is that you added this info here, because you already know it is not going to survive in the main article if added there because of quality objections. This is beginning to set a trend for a shadow Wikipedia where an encyclopedia of "not-ready-for-prime-time information" starts to grow on the talk pages. My suggestion would be to avoid the shadow encyclopedia because what Wikipedia needs is help in repairing the many pages that really need repair, not adding more half-baked information that is of a lower quality. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you're welcome. ADM (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. But seriously, I do think it is a good idea to avoid, and cleanup, the Shadow Encyclopedia items altogether. For instance, the other day, I had to type a comment on Template talk:Roman Catholicism about the fact that so many articles that are mentioned on that template are in need of repair, have almost no references and have all kinds of tags put on them warning of quality problems. At a time like this, is any effort anyone has not better spent on repairing those and getting a high quality encyclopedia together rather than adding more half-baked information? I think there is a huge volume of information in Wikipedia (unlike a few years ago), now the real task is that making sure it is "high quality". History2007 (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Conception as creation
The article should maybe explain that in Catholic doctrine, the word conception is almost synonymous with creation, and that while it is also analoguous to biological conception, it is not used in the same exact sense as biologists use the word. The doctrine is that every person is conceived or created by the Holy Spirit, therefore all embryos have a non-Immaculate conception because of original sin. Therefore, although Mary's embryo was the product of a marital intercourse like all spiritually created human beings, it had received a special gift of sanctifying grace which no other human creature has ever received, a grace which allowed her to become the Theotokos. ADM (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

--Another distinction made by some is that the word "conception" used in the document is not necessarily exactly the same as we use it today. The Church has never officially taught that ensoulment occurs at conception; original sin and grace have to do with the soul; the imnmaculateness of Mary's conception only has meaning in regards to her as an ensouled creature; therefore when the dogma uses the word conception it means her "coming-into-existence-as-an-ensouled-being". see http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_33.asp The author of that has said
 * 1) at the time of the papal Definition, the basic biological understanding of human fertilization had not been elucidated. The dogmatic formula of the Immaculate Conception makes explicit reference to the "first instant of her conception," and one might reflexively assume that this is a reference to her biological conception. One of the difficulties with this supposition is that while the promulgation of the dogma took place in 1854, the discovery of the ovum had only occurred a few years prior in 1827, and even though some important preliminary work had been carried out in 1853, the first instance of fertilization wouldn't be observed and widely appreciated by scientists until 1875 using transparent sea urchin eggs. The term "conception," when used in the Definition, refers to ensoulment, not to the later-developed understanding of biological fertilization.


 * 2) the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is essentially a statement about ensoulment, and can theologically and summarily be formulated as: "the immaculate ensoulment". It does not deal with the question of the timing of ensoulment, either for Our Lady, or in general. It simply affirms that ensoulment, whenever it may have occurred for Our Lady, occurred in a manner different from yours and mine. She was absolutely preseverved from any trace of original sin concurrent with that personalizing moment of ensoulment, unlike the rest of us who were not preserved from original sin in the moment of our ensoulment (or conception).

This is perhaps not as important in the context of this article as it might be in some other context.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to overly long Introduction
As a fix for the overly long introduction, I propose that the first paragraph be unchanged, followed by the two paragraphs printed here, with the rest of the information in the introduction being distributed into the article text. (If no one objects, I will do it next week.)


 * The belief that Mary lived a life without sin is as old as the Catholic church, but the doctrine that her perfection began at the moment of her own conception first appeared in ninth century England and spread throughout Europe during the middle ages. The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on 8 December, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. He did not define the doctrine as a dogma, thus leaving Roman Catholics freedom to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy; this freedom was reiterated by the 16th century Council of Trent. Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854.


 * In the Roman Catholic Church, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of Obligation, except where conferences of bishops have decided, with the approval of the Holy See, not to maintain it as such. It is a public holiday in some countries where Roman Catholicism is predominant.

HowardMorland (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the intro is too long, but just those three paragraphs are probably too short. And the fact that it is a public holiday probably does not deserve to be upfront, there are more important items, e.g. the dogmatic issue. You are right that teh history items need to move to history, etc. How about a prototype here on the talk page for the intro to see what happens. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)