Breaking News:
“Full of Grace” & Divine Cells UPDATED
Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:04 PM
Elizabeth Scalia
When I studied Anatomy and Physiology in college, the lesson that included microchimerism, became instructive to me on a different level. Learning that every child leaves within his mother a microscopic bit of himself–and that it remains within her forever–the dogma of the Immaculate Conception instantly became both crystal clear and brilliant to me.
Mary, then, was indeed a tabernacle within which the Divinity did reside – not for a limited time, but for all of her life. Understanding this (and considering how the churches seemed to get it ‘way before microscopes told us anything) the Immaculate Conception made and makes perfect sense: God, who is All-Good is also completely Pure; the vessel in which He resides, then, must be pure, too, or it would not be able to sustain all of that “light in which we see light itself.”
Art Sippo:
WOW! That is something new. So much has been learned since I did my medical training. Microchimeralism may helpto explain several immune problems we find in patients. But it also shows that Mother's and children share share themselves with each other in a manner that we never realized before.
The BVM was intimately BIOLOGICALLY intertwined with her Son for her entire life. It is true to say that she remained a living tabernacle contianing the body and blood of Jesus.
I have always pictureed the BVM in Heaven as she is depicted in Revlation 12 pregnant with the Son of God. But truly, even after she had given birth he remained ever with her. Amazing. [source]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
And here I always thought it was due to the midichlorians.
Good grief.
So its now understandable that the Mother-Child bond is more than just psychological, the psychological bond can be in part be due to physiological causes. This is still a far cry from being "proof" for the "Immaculate Conception" however.
Okay, now that's just dumb. I guess it's the RC answer to Louie Giglio and laminin.
Yeah, "WOW!" </sarcasm
Where's the Congregation for the Causes of Saints when you need them?
(Maybe the same place as the Magisterium.)
From this post Delivered From All Stain I had the following exchange on the ensuing thread:
(Me) "What if the Pope never declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary as Infallible Dogma?
Speculating, what is and what was the benefit of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma?
Speculating, what is and what was the noticeable downsides of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma?
Why did the Pope declare the Immaculate Conception an Infallible Dogma in the first place? What were the doctrinal and practical concerns and controversies of the day that drove the Pope to declare it Ex Cathedra in the first place? What terrible heresy or practice was occuring that the Pope felt that it was so important to declare the Immaculate Conception of Mary an Infallible Dogma of the Latin Church?"
(MacGabhann) "@Truth Unites etc.
Through the Holy Spirit Catholic truth unfolds and is explicated over time. The explication of one truth at one point of time paves the way for the explcation of further truths at subsequent points in time. The explication of truth at any point of time never contradicts earlier explications, but ever developes them into greater wholeness. Protestants, having foresworn Tradition and the notion of the Church as embodying Tradition, always fail to understand this point."
(Me) "@ MacGabhann,
Your response looks to be a non-sequitur to my inquiries in the 11:18am comment."
(MacGabhann) "@Truth Unite etc.
Not at all.The truth of the Immaculate Conception was explicated when it was because its time in the course of development and explication of all Catholic truth had arrived. In being explicated it cast its light in two directions: on the past, where it further enlightened previously explicated truths, and on tHe future where it adds its light to explications that are still to emerge, in part by virtue of this very light. To seek reasons as you do within the realm of profane history is to misconstrue Tradition and to subordinate it to the natural."
I guess that settles that.
But let us not forget that according to RC dogma, every single Romanist who has ever participated in the Mass has had just as "intimate" physical bodily contact with Jesus Christ as Mary ever did. So what would make her so special in this regard, according to Sippo?
After all, imprimatured RC writers have explicitly claimed that RC priests have been doing countless times what Mary did only once - that is, bringing Jesus Christ to the world.
"The BVM was intimately BIOLOGICALLY intertwined with her Son for her entire life."
And this argument is nonsense in any case - for even if Mary would have permanently kept "a part of Christ" within herself for the rest of her life, she would not have had this trait BEFORE being approached by God. So not "her ENTIRE life", Mr. Sippo - you fail in elementary logic. The dogma of Immaculate Conception was about Mary's OWN birth, not that of Christ.
If the IC could be proved, it would not be worth believing. I'm as revolted by the idea of proving doctrines - in the more recent "worsened sense" of the word "prove" - true, as by the Eucharistic Miracles, which if genuine would cut their own throats.
The IC and transubstantiation are known only through faith. If God could be proved to exist, he would not be worth the time of day; for only a small god, an idol, can be proved to exist. To prove things is to make faith pointless, needless, impossible. If it can be proved, it's a lie & a fraud.
And no, I haven't forgotten the beginning of Acts 1, or the frequent use of the word of the word *apologia*. But there is a gigantic difference between those things, and the fungus-growth of apologetics that has occurred since.
Is Mary's Mother also Immaculate?
As if 900+ attributes and titles ascribed to the RC Queen of Heaven are not enough, ) the RC teaches that Mary also shed her blood in the person of her Son, which would seem to effectively mean that to consume the flesh of Jesus is ingest the flesh of Mary* (for with God all things are possible), yet claims that God could not bring forth the sinless Word made flesh apart except thru a sinless mothers, though she was not brought forth by such herself (as with God all things are possible).
This therefore makes the grace by which we have the Scriptures even more amazing, as God brought forth His perfect Word thru men who were not immaculate (Is. 6:5)
*“Moreover, one must remember that the Blood of Christ shed for our sake and those members in which He offers to His Father the wounds He received, the price of our liberty, are no other than the flesh and blood of the virgin, since the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary, and however much it was exalted in the glory of His resurrection, nevertheless the nature of His flesh derived from Mary remained and still remains the same (de Assumpt. B. V. M., c.v., among the Opera S. Aug).” — Fidentem Piumque Animum - On the Rosary; Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, September 20, 1896
May the Lamb receive the reward of His sufferings.
"To prove things is to make faith pointless, needless, impossible. If it can be proved, it's a lie & a fraud."
Me thinks you went too far. I know you refer to God, yet while faith is not seeing, it is not without evidence, and we would not have Christianity and the Bible without God making Himself evident to a degree in a manifest way.
How did Abraham know which God was the true God and that He told Him to leave town to a place unknown? How did he and his faith become established as of God? How did Moses and his teaching gain his authority,or that of Jesus and the apostles? Take away the supernatural and blessings as a result of obedience, and you have no real faith.
The apostle's authority was established by a holiness and doctrine and Divine attestation that conformed to and complemented that which was written and exampled by Christ, and which writings themselves were progressively established as being from God by their enduring heavenly qualities and the attestation resulting from faith and obedience to them.
This does not affirm the what all of heath and wealth profits, but that God has showed Himself alive by many evidences, beginning with creation, which benefited those who sought the light while the rest were blinded.
If you will, God is like a somewhat distant veiled women, whose beautiful can be somewhat perceived but yet what one can see that there is much more that cannot be seen, and thus it invites a closer look. And to such that seek, more is revealed, while only those who enter into covenant will see that which is otherwise unlawful. An yet now, to have single eyes, (Mt. 6:22) is to be full of light, individually and corporately. And so i must seek.
Post a Comment