# The Immaculate Conception **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2007, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403 "2007-01-10T14:11:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/101 "2007-01-15T18:44:06Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] To believe something first requires that it make coherent sense. I can’t believe in a square circle, no matter how much I try or claim to do so. It isn’t possible. You can say “when you say this, I respond with this jumble of words that I think sort of implies something or other to me”, but you can’t say that Christians believe that, because even they can’t explain what it is they believe. [/QUOTE] If I were you I would not believe it then. Or do you suggest that if something doesn’t make sense to you, it must be inherently implausible? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/102 "2007-01-15T19:18:48Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] To believe something first requires that it make coherent sense. I can’t believe in a square circle, no matter how much I try or claim to do so. It isn’t possible. You can say “when you say this, I respond with this jumble of words that I think sort of implies something or other to me”, but you can’t say that Christians believe that, because even they can’t explain what it is they believe. [/QUOTE] Actually, it makes sense to me…and I’m not trying to convince anyone else of it…so what difference does it make if it makes sense to you? Granted, my explanation of theology is not very good. As I said, that is why I usually tend to avoid discussions of it. But my failings don’t have anything to do with whether the theology is valid or not. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/103 "2007-01-15T21:01:15Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] To believe something first requires that it make coherent sense. I can’t believe in a square circle, no matter how much I try or claim to do so. It isn’t possible. You can say “when you say this, I respond with this jumble of words that I think sort of implies something or other to me”, but you can’t say that Christians believe that, because even they can’t explain what it is they believe. [/QUOTE] But at some point things are taken on faith. To say Christ was completely God and completely man…? I can’t fathom that but I believe it and can understand to the extent I need to. [QUOTE=kanicbird] While it is not correct word usage, I don’t see anything wrong in terms of faith to name the conception of our lord the I.C. If both of you know what each other is talking about, we have communication. If the intention and message delivered is based in faith and scripture then there is no ‘sin’ so to speak, just words used which are technically incorrect. [/QUOTE] That’s the trouble; it’s not usually being used this way in a serious conversation. If it were a discussion about dogma I’d have much less problem correcting them. It’s that it’s used as a flippant expression “Me, pregnant? Only if it’s an immaculate conception!”…come to think of it, maybe I should just let those go, because it’s not in the right context so it doesn’t really matter what they mean…?? ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/104 "2007-01-16T09:26:41Z")
[QUOTE=JRDelirious] **FRDE** - What can I say, I have the nagging suspicion about when the Grotto of the Nativity and the Holy Sepulcher were “identified”, that they may have just coincidentally happened to be on the property of some in-laws of whoever was doing the identifying 😉 [/QUOTE] Your nagging suspicion is one I share ! Heh, the first time I visited the Holy Sepulchre was in 1991 On a ledge, by JC’s bed, conveniently sited for receiving the ash from his morning cigarette, was an Indian brass vase ( I can tell those things at 100 paces, as I once sold them in a street market). Oddly, the tourist shops were full of similar Indian brassware. We figured that there was some sort of protection/product placement racket going on - and wondered if we could get the fragrance houses interested. - Sort of JC uses Givenchy aftershave And of course Scholl sandals could be placed at the foot of his bed … Thinking about it a slot machine dishing out Indulgences could be a money spinner - so many missed opportunities. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/105 "2007-01-16T12:50:14Z")
[QUOTE=yBeayf] No way – it was totally the Catholics who split from the Orthodox. 😉 [/QUOTE] At any rate they split,It (I undersand) over the triune God. Until the time Of Constantine, Christianity was many small groups. Even Peter and Paul didn’t agree on everything. Hence, the reason that Constantine asked for a council that created a basic creed for all believers. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/106 "2007-01-16T13:52:32Z")
[QUOTE=gigi] But at some point things are taken on faith. [/quote] It’s important not to confuse the issue of whether you think something has truth value with the issue of whether or not it has intelligible meaning. The latter is necessary for the former, because without the latter, what exactly is it that you think has truth value? Again, I can say that I think that a “square circle” exists, but given that I cannot conceive of what such a thing would be or look like, what exactly is it that I am claiming exists? There isn’t any real way to determine. I seem to basically just be agreeing with a bunch of words, rather than agreeing with any concept behind the words. > [@](#): > > To say Christ was completely God and completely man…? I can’t fathom that but I believe it and can understand to the extent I need to. Again, saying, on faith that you believe this string of words to be true is not the same thing as saying that there is a concept there you understand that is true. If you don’t understand or can’t conceive of what the concept is behind the words, then what does it really mean that you “believe” it? It just seems like you’ve been told that a Christian must agree to this statement. It’s no different, in a way, than being told that you must agree to the truth of whatever statement I have in this here black box, and you decide to agree in order to please me without knowing what it is you are agreeing to. > [@](#): > > That’s the trouble; it’s not usually being used this way in a serious conversation. If it were a discussion about dogma I’d have much less problem correcting them. It’s that it’s used as a flippant expression “Me, pregnant? Only if it’s an immaculate conception!”…come to think of it, maybe I should just let those go, because it’s not in the right context so it doesn’t really matter what they mean…?? True, a lot of people seem to be ignorant of the particulars of Catholic doctrine. But then, many Christians in America seem to think that Rapture theology is a fundamentally litteral, ancient, and nearly universal Christian doctrine, when it is none of those things. What are you gonna do? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/107 "2007-01-16T14:01:43Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] If I were you I would not believe it then. Or do you suggest that if something doesn’t make sense to you, it must be inherently implausible? [/QUOTE] It’s not about making sense to me in particular. I’ve never encountered anyone who can explain what they mean on this score. It’s like the Trinity or the Incarnation: saying you believe it seems to be some sort of loyalty test more than a coherent doctrine where people understand what is actually being conveyed. [QUOTE=Sarahfeena] Actually, it makes sense to me…and I’m not trying to convince anyone else of it…so what difference does it make if it makes sense to you? [/quote] It might not make a difference to you, and you might not care, but that’s irrelevant. When you say that it makes sense to you, I don’t believe you. In my experience, people just haven’t thought about exactly what it is this doctrine actually means. It contains a bunch of words that make sense and seem to convey an emotional core that people like. But when it comes time to explain what I means, I’ve seen people time and time again fail to be able to do so. > [@](#): > > But my failings don’t have anything to do with whether the theology is valid or not. True, but in this case, I think the fault is the theology, not your knowledge of it. ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/108 "2007-01-16T15:15:07Z")
Uh, didn’t the Orthodox/Catholic split happen over _filioque_? “Who proceedeth from the Father _and the Son_”? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/109 "2007-01-16T16:02:51Z")
[QUOTE=FRDE] it is supposedly the drugs capital, but it is a great place to eat. [/QUOTE] Putting two and two together… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/110 "2007-01-16T17:22:45Z")
I hope you’ll excuse the hijack. As it happens, I know several people who are members of a Christian denomination which predates Roman Catholicism. They’re members of the[Armenian Church](http://www.armenianchurch.org/) which was founded by St. Gregory and officially adopted as the state religion of Armenia in 301 CE. While I’m sure this would disappoint a former poster here who maintained there were groups of Protestants who existed in parallel to the Catholic Church from the time of Christ, their beliefs have more in common with the Catholic Church than other denominations, including Orthodox denominations. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/111 "2007-01-16T18:10:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Uh, didn’t the Orthodox/Catholic split happen over filioque? “Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son”? That, and the pope of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction, and the Latins’ use of azymes, and a whole bunch of stupidity on both sides as well. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/112 "2007-01-16T18:16:56Z")
> [@](#): > > They’re members of theArmenian Church which was founded by St. Gregory and officially adopted as the state religion of Armenia in 301 CE. While I’m sure this would disappoint a former poster here who maintained there were groups of Protestants who existed in parallel to the Catholic Church from the time of Christ, their beliefs have more in common with the Catholic Church than other denominations, including Orthodox denominations. The Armenians _are_ an Orthodox church, albeit Oriental Orthodox, so they are in communion with the Copts, Syrians, and Ethiopians, rather than the Greeks and Russians. In terms of theology and ethos, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer to each other than either are to the Latin church, and chances for reunion between them are much greater than they are between the Latins and the Orthodox. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/113 "2007-01-16T19:44:03Z")
Not if you ask the Armenians. The ones I know take a certain amount of pride in pre-dating and being separate from the Catholic Church. If you ask them, if no Armenian Church is available, the next best option for them is Catholic, not Orthodox. I’m not sure who they’re officially in communion with and what I know is based on what I’ve learned from informed lay people. If you need a cite, I can e-mail it to you. ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/114 "2007-01-16T19:52:23Z")
Catholics may take Communion at Orthodox and Coptic churches. I don’t know if the reverse is true. Right. Filioque and the headship of Rome. And politics. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403/115 "2007-01-16T20:12:21Z")
> [@](#): > > If you ask them, if no Armenian Church is available, the next best option for them is Catholic, not Orthodox. I’m not sure who they’re officially in communion with and what I know is based on what I’ve learned from informed lay people. Are you talking about Armenian Catholics or Armenian Orthodox? The latter (the majority of Armenian Christians) are definitely in communion with the Coptic Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox, and not with the Catholic church, so one of those churches would be preferable if no Armenian church were available. If you did have a cite that had episcopal backing (i.e. from a bishop or approved by a bishop), that said that in the absence of an Armenian Orthodox church it is preferable for Armenian Orthodox to commune at a Catholic church rather than one of the other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches that the Armenian Orthodox are in communion with, I’d be very interested in seeing it – my email is ybeayf at gmail dot com. > [@](#): > > Catholics may take Communion at Orthodox and Coptic churches. I don’t know if the reverse is true. Catholics are allowed by their own church to commune at Orthodox churches, but Orthodox will not commune Catholics, and Orthodox are not allowed by their churches to commune at Catholic churches. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-immaculate-conception/387403.md?page=5)