Re: Immaculate Misconceptions :-)
Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:56:51 -0700

On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 12:53:41 -0500, Michael Lorrey <> wrote:

>As a person who was raised Roman Catholic, was an altar boy and actually
>the bible, I have to say you are stupendously wrong.

I am also Roman Catholic, was an altar boy and have studied the bible for many years (not that that's relevant to this doctrine), as well as the standard doctrinal works. I have to tell you that *you* are amazingly wrong here:

>An Immaculate Conception takes place when a virgin becomes pregnant and
her hymen remains
>intact, thus proving that the child has no earthly father. Its
'immaculate' because it is
>prefectly [sic] clean, with no blood from the breaking of the hymen... get

Au contraire, the Immaculate Conception refers to *Mary's* conception, not Jesus'. If you'll look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find that it is the doctrine that Mary was conceived without original sin. (This idea has been rejected by almost all Protestants as having no biblical foundation.) It was defined as dogma by Pope Pius IX in the mid-19th century, one of the only two "ex cathedra" pronouncements in history.

Jesus' condition of being born to a virgin is called the Virgin Birth - and by the way, this is believed by all traditionalist Christians, not just Catholics/Orthodox, since it's explicitly taught in two of the Gospels.

These are two entirely separate teachings.

Do I care? Not really - it's all myth, though I still like hearing the stories.

Pax et bonum -
Dick Gray, SFO