Author Topic: Immaculate Conception "Fitting" but not "Necessary?" (Read 606 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** December 08, 2017, 08:20:44 AM »

First, let me state that I absolutely and unconditionally accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But I ran across a Protestant argument that made me say hmm: They say the dogma was not necessary (which Ineffabilis Deus also implies, even using the word fitting, instead of necesary), and is merely a pius thought. They say that perhaps Our Lord having been born to a sinful woman would have been even more fitting and more humble.

What is the Catholic response to this argument?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2017, 10:08:06 AM »

Quote from: Kreuzritter on December 08, 2017, 10:03:46 AM

And I don't follow the "argument". If it would have been more "fitting" for God to have been carried in the womb of a sinner than of the Immaculate Conception, then wouldn't it have been most fitting for the Theotokos to have been the worst of sinners? The reductio absurdum would be what? Gabriel bringing the annuciation to a transsɛҳuąƖ lesbian prostitute named Jezebel, addicted to drugs and on the run from the Roman authorities for her fifth murder?

:applause:

Geremia · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2018, 10:52:35 AM »

Nothing necessitated God to create the universe, either.
He could've redeemed us in another manner, too, but He chose otherwise.

Author Topic: Immaculate Conception "Fitting" but not "Necessary?" (Read 606 times)

Änσnymσus

Immaculate Conception "Fitting" but not "Necessary?"

Änσnymσus

Re: Immaculate Conception "Fitting" but not "Necessary?"

Geremia

Re: Immaculate Conception "Fitting" but not "Necessary?"