Well, erm, except for one minor flaw in your definition:
“Virgin Birth” refers to the birth of Jesus while his mother was still a virgin. (And remained perpetually so, according to the Orthodox and Catholics, but that’s a distinct doctrine; the VB itself only requires that she have remained a virgin up until his birth.)
Note that the Immaculate Conception refers totally to the Catholic doctrine of original sin transmitted through conception; it’s the presumption that Sts. Joachim and Anna conceived Mary through the normal process (and, one hopes, had fun doing it!).
Why do you think the writers of “Lost” don’t understand the distinction? The line was delivered by a woman who was clearly batshit insane. People who are batshit insane shouldn’t be expected to deliver accurate exposition of Catholic theology.
Not every Christian believes in the Immaculate Conception as conceptualized by the RCC. It’s an interesting explanation for why Jesus was/is supposedly 100% completely blameless. But it’s not the only explanation out there.
I was taught that the VB and IC were one in the same, and just found out the difference a year ago.
Ok I’m a theological moron/illiterate. And frankly the Gauderian interference in the OP didn’t help. Upshot - I have no clue what the freak you’re talking about. I don’t even see why it even matters to anyone what the distinction is. Isn’t the one just the result of the other? Maybe if you could just restate the OP and maybe explain how Lost screwed it up it’d make sense.
In RCC theology, everyone is born with Original Sin (thank you Adam, Eve, and the apple). But Mary, Jesus’s mom, was born without Original Sin: that’s the Immaculate Conception – she was conceived without the stain of Original Sin on her soul.
Then Mary gets pregnant with Jesus, but since she didn’t have sex (thank you God and the Angel Gabriel), that’s the Virgin Birth: Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.
So the one isn’t the result of the other, really. Although the reason she was born without Original Sin was so that she could be Jesus’s mom. So they’re related, but not causally.
If that helps, I will finally have gotten a use for all that Catholic school and CCD. Other than learning all the words to “Do They Know It’s Christmas?”, which I don’t really know why we had to learn those.
But jsgoddess, that makes me crazy too. And it’s too early for Lost out here, so I don’t know who messed that up. Yet.
See above. St. Joachim laid St. Anne, in the normal manner (well, we assume; perhaps they did it on donkeyback or something!). However, according to Catholic theology, in order to provide a pristine vessel in which the Christ might be conceived and born, by special intervention of the Holy Spirit the taint of original sin was kept away from the conceptus that would grow up to become the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That’s the Immaculate Conception. And it’s exclusively a Catholic doctrine.
The Virgin Birth, on the other hand, is based in the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both of which say that Joseph and Mary did not get it on, and that Mary conceived “being overshadowed by the power of the Holy Spirit.” It’s a standard belief held to by almost all major denominations, Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, or Protestant. (Although many individual Christians don’t necessarily buy it.)
Connected with this is the idea that Mary never had sex: the Perpetual Virginity. This is a Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, held to by only a few Protestants.