A problem with Immaculate Conception

[Valke2]

First, I’m Jewish. I don’t know a lot about Catholic doctrine and I apologize in advance if I am getting things wrong. I was thinking about the issue of Jesus and siblings vs. cousins, when the following question occurred to me:

If the only way to redeem ourselves from original sin was for Jesus to sacrifice his life, then how do we square this with the doctrine of immaculate conception, which holds that through God’s grace/desire, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. It seems that God had the power to remove the stain of original sin by means other than the death of Jesus.

 

[Lazerlike42]

First, I’m Jewish. I don’t know a lot about Catholic doctrine and I apologize in advance if I am getting things wrong. I was thinking about the issue of Jesus and siblings vs. cousins, when the following question occurred to me:

If the only way to redeem ourselves from original sin was for Jesus to sacrifice his life, then how do we square this with the doctrine of immaculate conception, which holds that through God’s grace/desire, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. It seems that God had the power to remove the stain of original sin by means other than the death of Jesus.

Catholic Theology holds that God is outside of time. He does not have a past or a future, He simply is. Hence, when Moses asks His name, God replies “I Am.”

Because God is outside of time, He is able to apply the merits of Christ, which are chronologically in the future, to events happening before the Incarnation, life, death, and Ressurection.

Thus, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and so forth could be saved even though the Savior had not yet come. In the same way, Mary could have the merits of Christ’s work applied to her.

 

[Della]

Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin through Jesus’ sacrificial death, not without it.

God is not limited by time and space as we are. Christ’s sacrifice was for all humanity, throughout time, before his birth and after. If this were not the case, no one after the actual day of the crucifixion would have any more access to the redemption than those born before.

The sacrifices of the OT were a pre-figure and looking forward to the sacrifice of Jesus, which is why those born before him could be redeemed and saved just as those after.

 

[Mommyof02green]

It helps to understand what exactly the Immaculate Conception of Mary was: Physically, she was conceived in the normal way through the marital relations of her parents. Spiritually, God preserved her from original sin at the moment of her conception in anticipation of the grace Jesus would win on the cross.

Source: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512qq.asp

Or maybe this quote will help:

The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called “preservative redemption,” Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

God can “save” a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

**Source: ** catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, I’m Jewish. I don’t know a lot about Catholic doctrine and I apologize in advance if I am getting things wrong. I was thinking about the issue of Jesus and siblings vs. cousins, when the following question occurred to me:

If the only way to redeem ourselves from original sin was for Jesus to sacrifice his life, then how do we square this with the doctrine of immaculate conception, which holds that through God’s grace/desire, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. It seems that God had the power to remove the stain of original sin by means other than the death of Jesus.

God did not remove the stain of original sin from Mary; she was protected from ever being stained.

I can catch a toddler before he falls into a swimming pool and drowns or I can pull him out quickly after he falls in. Either way, I have saved him.

She was saved before - we are saved after.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Think of Mary as the Arc of the New Convenant, not touched by human hands just as with the convenant of the Old Testament.

We are told in the new testament that prior to accepting God’s call to be the mother of Jesus that Mary was greeted as being full of grace. God’s grace, saving grace. How could that have happened?

 

[Lillith]

The thought of God in the eternal now…“I AM” Here is a question for you smarter people in the house…Someone try to follow me please…

Generations of man, to me are like stair steps, with each generation having it’s own step so to speak…But how does God “see” this???

Life for all generations of man is happening in a straight line…Or am I getting into dimensional thought here…that I had best back out of lest my brain implode…

I hope someone understands my question

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

It seems that God had the power to remove the stain of original sin by means other than the death of Jesus.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but God could save us by other means than by Jesus. He could because he is all-powerful. I believe that the reason why he chose to send his only son to death is a mystery none of us can answer (we can only guess and theorize). On the other hand it shows us something that we can realize without a PhD in theology - that he loves us VERY VERY MUCH.

 

[Valke2]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but God could save us by other means than by Jesus. He could because he is all-powerful. I believe that the reason why he chose to send his only son to death is a mystery none of us can answer (we can only guess and theorize). On the other hand it shows us something that we can realize without a PhD in theology - that he loves us VERY VERY MUCH.

I don’t know if that is correct under Catholic theology. I’ll assume it is. But then it begs teh question, if GOd could save us without sacrificing his son, why do it. How does needlessly sacrificing His son demonstrate love? I can see the argument that if it was necessary, it was an act of Love. But if it wasn’t necessary, what exactly was it?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I don’t know if that is correct under Catholic theology. I’ll assume it is. But then it begs teh question, if GOd could save us without sacrificing his son, why do it. How does needlessly sacrificing His son demonstrate love? I can see the argument that if it was necessary, it was an act of Love. But if it wasn’t necessary, what exactly was it?

Athanasius would have said that this is how He had to do it, I believe. Others would say no. As the post to which you replying to said, there are speculations as to why God would have done it that way - different reasons, which make sense. Perhaps someone happens to have a list of some of the more common ideas readily available?

 

[ricmat]

I don’t know if that is correct under Catholic theology. I’ll assume it is. But then it begs teh question, if GOd could save us without sacrificing his son, why do it. How does needlessly sacrificing His son demonstrate love? I can see the argument that if it was necessary, it was an act of Love. But if it wasn’t necessary, what exactly was it?

Here’s one answer…it has to do with justice. We believe God is infinite in all respects, all good, all knowing, all beautiful…etc…including infinitely just.

Any of our sins against God, no matter how minor, offend the One who has infinite “dignity” and who is infinitely just.

Justice demands that we pay for our sins. But how can we pay back an injustice against an infinite beinig with a finite sacrifice or payment?

The only answer is that the payment itself must be infinite. The sacrifice must be perfect as well as infinite. And the only One who meets these requirements is God.

So God provided us the perfect and infinite sacrifice - Jesus, his son, as God provided the (imperfect) ram to Abraham in lieu of Isaac in a prefigurement of the perfect sacrifice to come later.

Note: I’m not smart enough to figure this out by myself, and I’m not even smart enough to remember where I got this…but I think it was from the book 50 Questions on the Natural Law by Charles Rice.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I don’t know if that is correct under Catholic theology. I’ll assume it is. But then it begs teh question, if GOd could save us without sacrificing his son, why do it. How does needlessly sacrificing His son demonstrate love? I can see the argument that if it was necessary, it was an act of Love. But if it wasn’t necessary, what exactly was it?

Don’t take me as an authority on this issue. I might be entirelly and completelly wrong and I apologice if I am.

Now I believe it depends how you look at it. As a completelly omnipotent God, I believe, he could say a word with the same effect. I think this is quite logical. However he is to some extend “limited” by his nature. In other words he is for example pefectly just and all-loving. In some sense that’s what he “had to do” because of his nature.

I think it might be similar to this example: John and Bob are good friends and one day they decide to go on a trip to nearby woods. Unfortunately Bob gets bitten by a poisonous snake. There is no one around to help Bob but John. John could perfectly walk away and leave his friend alone to die but he will not do it because he is not evil and loves his friend. In some sense walking around was not an option and the only thing John could do was to help his friend.

 

[jburgherr]

I don’t know if that is correct under Catholic theology. I’ll assume it is. But then it begs the question, if God could save us without sacrificing his son, why do it. How does needlessly sacrificing His son demonstrate love? I can see the argument that if it was necessary, it was an act of Love. But if it wasn’t necessary, what exactly was it?

Hi Valke:

It is easy for us to think linearly in time, as it is our only reference.

Again…God is out side of time. That at the time of Mary’s conception, Jesus had not died on the cross and resurrected yet, does not mean that God the Father did not know God the Son. Nor does it mean that God the Father and God the Son did not know that the Crucifixion and Resurrection would take place at the appointed time(s).

Ergo…Mary, being saved from sin prior to her conception through the merit of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, which would happen much later in the time line, is no big deal…for God.

Again it comes down to letting God…be God. He is Omnipotent and Omnipresent. Seeing all things in all times…all the time.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

While God could have saved us many number of way, he in fact only saved us by one way, through Christ redemptive work.

Nonetheless, God exists in a singe eternal present, not having past or future. It was through Christ that Abraham became righteous, for instance. So this is less to do with a problem of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it has to do with the conception of God and his transcendence of time.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The holy Fathers [of the OT] while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ” (*Summa Theologica *III, 52, 5).

 

[Della]

The thought of God in the eternal now…“I AM” Here is a question for you smarter people in the house…Someone try to follow me please…

Generations of man, to me are like stair steps, with each generation having it’s own step so to speak…But how does God “see” this???

Life for all generations of man is happening in a straight line…Or am I getting into dimensional thought here…that I had best back out of lest my brain implode…

I hope someone understands my question

If you think of time like a carousel instead of a straight line, I think you would be able to understand how God can be outside of time.

Time is like a mother who is watching her child riide on a carousel. From the child’s perspective, the carousel is moving in only one direction and passing things by. The mother standing outside the carousel sees the whole carousel as well as her child riding on it. It’s all of a piece to her, not something that is happening one revolution after another. Does that help?

 

[RNRobert]

The thought of God in the eternal now…“I AM” Here is a question for you smarter people in the house…Someone try to follow me please…

Generations of man, to me are like stair steps, with each generation having it’s own step so to speak…But how does God “see” this???

Life for all generations of man is happening in a straight line…Or am I getting into dimensional thought here…that I had best back out of lest my brain implode…

I hope someone understands my question

My best analogy would be a parade. Normally you stand on the street watching the parade go by. However, if you were up in a blimp or helicopter, you could see the entire parade (all the floats, marching bands, etc.) at once.
The parade is time itself. It has a beginning, and an end, and the floats, marching bands, etc, represent segments of time. Since we are in time, we are the person standing on the curb, watching the parade one float or marching band at a time. God, on the other hand, would be up in the blimp or helicopter. He can see the entire parade- from the first float to the last marching band- all at once.

Hope this helps.

 

[mlchance]

I don’t know if that is correct under Catholic theology. I’ll assume it is. But then it begs teh question, if GOd could save us without sacrificing his son, why do it. How does needlessly sacrificing His son demonstrate love? I can see the argument that if it was necessary, it was an act of Love. But if it wasn’t necessary, what exactly was it?

For our salvation, Christ’s sacrificial death was necessary, but it was not necessary that we be saved. IOW, God did not have to choose to save us, but since he did, the only means of affecting our salvation was through the sacrifice of the Son.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jburgherr]

I don’t know if that is correct under Catholic theology. I’ll assume it is. But then it begs the question, if God could save us without sacrificing his son, why do it. How does needlessly sacrificing His son demonstrate love? I can see the argument that if it was necessary, it was an act of Love. But if it wasn’t necessary, what exactly was it?

Valke,

You made me think quite a bit…

Here is an answer as why He would "choose to sacrifice his Son, even if he didn’t have to. Lets look at a common belief between Jew and Christian alike:

Moses, through the power of God, frees the Israelites from the bondage of the Egyptians.

God is all powerful…why would he need Moses to effect the freeing of the nation of Israel from bondage? He could merely speak the word and it would be done! Could he not?

However, throughout all of salvation history, God has always used the vehicle of his creation (Man) to further the salvation of man. You can see the evidence of this work through Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Moses, etc.

His final, most spectacular evidence of his love for us, his creatures, is to become one himself. He became, through His incarnation, the one and only perfect and everlasting sacrifice which is good enough to reconcile man to Himself for all time. All performed through the eternally begotten, second person of the Trinity – the God/Man Jesus Christ…

True God, true man, true sacrifice, true love!

 

[Catholig]

First, I’m Jewish. I don’t know a lot about Catholic doctrine and I apologize in advance if I am getting things wrong. I was thinking about the issue of Jesus and siblings vs. cousins, when the following question occurred to me:

If the only way to redeem ourselves from original sin was for Jesus to sacrifice his life, then how do we square this with the doctrine of immaculate conception, which holds that through God’s grace/desire, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. It seems that God had the power to remove the stain of original sin by means other than the death of Jesus.

I’m not sure if anyone said this or not, but I don’t think god (Jesus) came and died for us to save us from “original sin”. He came and died to allow us into heaven (if indeed I understand correctly), but it is baptism that rids us of original sin.

As for god removing the original sin from Mary - well I don’t know whether he did, but I do know that she was born without it However to avoid personal sin she did that herself by perfect conformity to God’s will.

Catholig

 

[Grateful4mercy]

The thought of God in the eternal now…“I AM” Here is a question for you smarter people in the house…Someone try to follow me please…

Generations of man, to me are like stair steps, with each generation having it’s own step so to speak…But how does God “see” this???

Life for all generations of man is happening in a straight line…Or am I getting into dimensional thought here…that I had best back out of lest my brain implode…

I hope someone understands my question

Hi Lillith. I totally stole one of your posts today as a perfect example of prayer vs sacrifice, so I definitely owe you.

One of my favorite authors, Dr Peter Kreeft, explained time and God in such a way that for the first time I am close to understanding it. His example (and I’m horribly paraphrasing here) was of an author writing a book. The author writes “Mary hears a knock at the door. She put’s down her book and gets up to answer it.” Now from Mary’s perspective, no time at all has passed from when she heard the knock and when she rose to answer it, right? But what if the author wrote the first sentence, put down the paper for 4 years, then picked it back up and wrote the second? The timeline for the author and the timeline for the characters in the book are not even slightly related. The author is ‘outside of time’ as far as the characters in the book are concerned. He can finish the entire book, then scroll back to the beginning and change the name of one character, or kill him because it helps the end of the story. Or, better yet, write himself into the story as a character, let’s say his name is…oh, I don’t know…maybe JESUS . Now he is both inside of time and outside of time from the books perspective. You should go and listen to Dr Kreeft explain it, he is 100 times a better story teller than I could hope to be.

www.peterkreeft.com

How great is the Author of Creation to look down upon his mighty work and think that I would make a nice character in his beautiful story. Blessed, that’s what I am!