[Milton-L] once again

Sara van den Berg vandens at slu.edu
Sun Dec 19 18:27:49 EST 2010


Dear Mr. Sirrah,

The Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary was enunciated by
Pope Pius IX in 1854.  You are correct in stating that this is not a
doctrine enunciated in the Bible.  The doctrine is not intended to say
anything about the historical or physical circumstances of Mary's conception
or birth.  The doctrine declares that Mary's soul was not tainted by
original sin.  That purity made her unique among people after Adam and Eve.
The Catholic Church developed this idea in order to support the doctrine
that the dual nature of Christ (as both divine and human) was entirely
without the taint of sin.  In order to make that claim, Mary as his human
parent had to be without taint.

You may choose not to accept this doctrine, of course.

The Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of
Mary every December.  It is one of the major feast days of the Roman
Catholic Church. There is more information about this doctrine available in
the Catholic Encyclopedia online and in many other widely available sources.


Merry Christmas,

S. van den Berg

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com> wrote:

>  radical, independent dogmatic decisions/beliefs aside....WHY? WHERE? in
> scripture does Mary being conceived immaculately come from?
>
> the answer: nowhere.
>
> This discussion only supports my criticsm of Paradise Lost from a few days
> ago.
>
> Individual people deciding - completely on their own - to insert
> biographical narratives and explanations into religious tradition is wrong.
>
> Why? because if it catches on, ignorant/uninformed people think it has
> divine foundation. Milton claimed a spirit dictated Paradise Lost to him at
> night. Joseph Smith said he dechiphered ancient golden tablets by putting
> glowing rocks in a hat, and then putting the dark hat to his face.
>
> L. Ron Hubbard gave no account of how he learned the story of Xenu. And
> yet, Scientologists believe what he says everywhere.
>
> It is just as plausible to say that these people made these things up. That
> they...were...lying.
>
> God forbid we descend on the most possible of possibilities of all.
>
> There is no physical, or historical evidence of Jesus whatsoever. And the
> only source documents regarding Mary are the gospels of Luke and Matthew.
>
> And in neither gospel is there any mention of Mary's conception.
>
> Once again, I respectfully ask the list to simply acknowledge this FACT and
> therefore dismiss all hypothetical theories regarding her conception and
> birth.
>
> Most pre-eminently due to the realization of what you are saying. If what
> you are saying is true, then Mary is THE DAUGHTER OF GOD, and therefore HIS
> first child on earth, not Jesus. It means she would be just as capable of
> performing miracles, being the true messiah, etc.
>
> What you all are clinging to is the sick product of the mentality of a
> specific period of time that dealt with Catholics' obsession with Mary's
> virginity...an obsession that has no root in actual New Testament scripture.
>
> Simply people - like you - making up facts and rationalizations on their
> own.
>
> The Immaculate Conception is the conception of JESUS. The earliest mention
> of Mary in scripture is when she is a young woman visiting Elizabeth, when
> she is visted by Gabriel and told she will conceive Jesus.
>
> Now please stop with all your encyclopedic references. Like Milton's crazy,
> ridiculous plot line in Paradise Lost, they are completely independently
> constructed definitions done by people who knew how easy it is to fool and
> persuade an idiotic multitude.
>
> There is nothing more sad than a crowd of people applauding a liar before
> checking into the facts.
>
> Opinions published in the last few hundred years are not facts. Documents
> from the first century ARE. Even though they are likely fictions too.
>
> Now please all of you stop, and move on to something else.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: mundylc at sbcglobal.net
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:33:02 -0500
>
> Though my email has certainly been full lately,  I cannot resist adding one
> more comment to this diatribe.  As a Catholic bred child, a graduate of a
> Catholic College filled with Edmonites who cheerfully pointed out the
> differences between the "facts" and the "parables",  and as a loving, though
> not erudite, teacher of JM,  my understanding of the Immaculate Conception
> is this:  Jesus could not have been born to a woman not of total purity,
> ergo, Mary is the child conceived Immaculately, and therefore is a totally
> pure and "qualified" Virgin able to conceive and give birth to the Son of
> God.    Whether fact, parable, or fiction, this belief has survived
> centuries of belief/denial and arguments, and unsuredly will continue to do
> so.  As always, I learn much from my learned colleagues, even when
> inciteful. and wish you all a warm and peaceful Season, no matter what your
> beliefs.
>
> Lorayne Mundy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
> *To:* milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:47 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
>
> I'm sorry Mr. Hodges, I'm not continuing with you about this. I have the
> Roman Catholic Catechism as well. I have no clue why you are debating
> this. I've stated my point...a point that needs no statement in the first
> place. Billions of people know you are incorrect. I will not respond again.
> Please don't use my name in another post.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:41:52 -0800
> From: jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
>
>  "'The Immaculate Conception' refers to how God impregnated Mary with
> Jesus."
> Nairba, are you saying that this is what *you* mean by the expression
> "Immaculate Conception," or that this is what is meant by the Roman Catholic
> doctrine?
>
> Jeffery Hodges
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
> *To:* milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> *Sent:* Sun, December 19, 2010 4:36:06 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Milton-L] Jeffery please
>
> I am NOT wrong. If you are actually reading an excerpt from the Roman
> Catholic Catechism, it is simply a typographical error. There is nothing in
> the Biblical canon about the birth of Mary. Nothing. There is no reason for
> the church to have any doctrine about how Mary was conceived.
>
>  "The Immaculate Conception" refers to how God impregnated Mary with Jesus.
> Even people who don't practice Christianity know that. Please stop saying
> i'm wrong. I am not wrong.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:31:38 -0800
> From: jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (clarified)
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
>
>  No, Nairba, you are wrong. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate
> conception refers to the process by which Mary was conceived in her mother's
> womb.
>
> Jeffery Hodges
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
> *To:* milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> *Sent:* Sun, December 19, 2010 4:26:28 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (clarified)
>
> Hello Jeffery,
>
> good hearing from you. But..
>
> no, again. If your statement were true it would be dealing with the birth
> of Mary. Conception refers to the conceiving of a child, a fetus. The person
> being conceived in the most famous case of "immaculate conception" is JESUS.
> Jesus! you both know what I meant.
>
> As for the Biblical passages quoted by Professor Danielson, all of us
> scholars know there are many, many different translations of that particular
> book and verse...and have several very different wordings and implications.
>
> But in them all, is the declaration made by god; the divine mandate of
> "this is what is going to happen to you." How Mary responds, as far as my
> contention is concerened, is irrelevant. God didn't offer her a choice.
>
> Giving a declaration of impregnating a woman is a violation of that woman's
> sanctity, no who (or what) makes that declaration. Her response could simply
> have been a moment of accepting inneviatablity. For all we know, she was
> mortified. Or madder than Hell.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:15:00 -0800
> From: jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
>
>  Nairba, you are wrong. The immaculate conception refers to the process by
> which Mary was conceived, not the process by which Jesus was conceived.
>
> Jeffery Hodges
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
> *To:* milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> *Sent:* Sun, December 19, 2010 4:05:04 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
>
> amazing you bothered to post that..."the immaculate conception" is the
> conception of JESUS inside Mary. It is therefore, quite "concerned" with
> both Mary and Jesus, and God.
>
> and to append the word "doctrine" to it is absurd.
>
> Some of you with your detial debating are truly frightening.
>
> > Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 01:56:09 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception (response)
> > From: alanshorn at gmail.com
> > To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> >
> > Once again, as Professor Danielson pointed out to you, the doctrine of
> > Immaculate Conception is concerned with the conception of Mary, not of
> > Jesus.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Dennis,
> > >
> > > didn't mean to infuriate. But that unfortunately happens a lot on here.
> > >
> > > In response, of course the Roman Catholic church is going to see it
> that way. But the main essence of the story is that Mary did not have a
> choice. God was the father. And she was the mother. She got preganant by
> divine insemination.
> > >
> > > As hard as it may be to face or admit, the "immacualate conception" by
> ancient and modern definition IS rape. She had no choice. Not exactly
> immaculate. Had God asked her permission, then fine. But as is, it was rape.
> > >
> > > Not to mention she was already married to another man. Adultery.
> > >
> > > And as for it not having anything to do with Milton, in Milton Jesus is
> "begotten" in Heaven. And considering he soon after fought in a war, was
> also born an adult.
> > >
> > > What's so wrong about considering the physical implications of these
> spiritual narratives? In Milton, we are to suppose that "the Son" is zapped
> into her uterus and reborn...but as you so graciosly pointed out, in Luke it
> clearly says she will conceive, meaning a sexual bonding between father and
> mother.
> > >
> > > Again, sorry for the offence and infuriation, but a fact is a fact.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:42:13 -0800
> > > > From: danielso at interchange.ubc.ca
> > > > Subject: Re: [Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception
> > > > To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> > > >
> > > > OK, so this hasn't much to do with Milton. And perhaps I shouldn't
> rise
> > > > to the bait. But Mr. Sirrah's assumptions are apparently false
> > > > (infuriating, too, but let that pass) on two counts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states
> that
> > > > *Mary* was conceived without sin; it wasn't officially formulated as
> > > > dogma until the 19th century.
> > > >
> > > > 2. If Sirrah means to say that *Mary* was impregnated against her
> will,
> > > > that statement is contrary to the plain meaning of the biblical
> account
> > > > of Luke 2:26-38 (See below, noting the future tense in the angel's
> "you
> > > > will conceive," plus Mary's compliant response).
> > > >
> > > > I'm done, except to thank Louis Schwartz for his eminently sensible
> > > > comments yesterday, and to wish my fellow Miltonists all the
> blessings
> > > > of the season, whatever feasts or festivals they observe.
> > > >
> > > > Dennis Danielson
> > > > _______________________
> > > >
> > > > Luke 2:26-38
> > > >
> > > > In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel
> Gabriel
> > > > to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to
> a
> > > > man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.
> The
> > > > angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored!
> The
> > > > Lord is with you.”
> > > >
> > > > Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of
> > > > greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid,
> > > > Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth
> to
> > > > a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be
> > > > called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the
> throne
> > > > of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants
> forever;
> > > > his kingdom will never end.”
> > > >
> > > > “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
> > > >
> > > > The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power
> of
> > > > the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be
> > > > called[b] the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to
> have
> > > > a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive
> is
> > > > in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.”
> > > >
> > > > “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be
> > > > fulfilled.”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10-12-18 9:07 PM, Nairba Sirrah wrote:
> > > > > in the vein of considering the classic epic hero and the classic
> epic
> > > > > villain, let us remember that "the immaculate conception" was (if
> it
> > > > > actually happened) categorically...rape. Anytime you impregnate a
> woman
> > > > > against her will, it is rape.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if Satan is the hero, guess who's the villain.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dennis Danielson
> > > > Professor of English
> > > > University of British Columbia
> > > > #397 - 1873 East Mall
> > > > Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1
> > > > telephone: 604-822-4092
> > > > Author: The First Copernican
> > > > Editor: Paradise Lost, Parallel Prose Edition
> > > > WEB: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/ddaniels/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Milton-L mailing list
> > > > Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> > > > Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> > > >
> > > > Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Milton-L mailing list
> > > Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> > > Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> > >
> > > Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Milton-L mailing list
> > Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> > Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> >
> > Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list
> archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L
> web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list
> archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L
> web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list
> archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L
> web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list
> archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L
> web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20101219/2c19071d/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list