About Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamil_joseph02
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jamil_joseph02 said:
I get it. So God really planned to increase the pain of childbearing even if the Fall would not occur?
Click to expand...
No. As punishment for disobedience, He increased the pain that women were already planned to experience.
And since this is related to the Immaculate Conception, well, does the Church teaches that since Mary was immaculately conceived then she would not suffer pain in giving birth to our Lord Jesus?
Click to expand...
No. Mary experienced only the lesser pain that women would have had if Eve had not been disobedient. Other women experience the greater pain.

Her experience of this “original” pain level is what is referenced in Revelaton 12.

The point of all this is to explain why Protestants cannot use the fact that the woman in Rev 12 cried out in birthpangs, to “prove” that Mary was not immaculately conceived.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Hi, Jamil.

It is important, in considering the issues raised by you, to carefully strive for technical accuracy in considering the words of Scripture.

For example, Randy Carson assures us that Isaiah 66:7’s prophecy of a birth without labor pains “is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.”

Yet look at Isaiah’s own words in the next two verses: To achieve Randy’s interpretation, we must carefully contradict those verses…

8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? Yet Zion is scarcely in labor when she gives birth to her children. Here Isaiah and the Holy Spirit assure us that the child being referred to is a country.

9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. Isaiah 66:8-9. Here Isaiah and the Holy Spirit assure us that the womb of the mother giving birth here shall be “open,” not “closed.” The Church itself teaches that Mary’s womb remained closed.

Similarly, in considering John’s Revelation, note John’s title for the mother in Revelation 12: “Woman.”

John was surely familiar with Genesis, and was aware that he was giving to the mother of Jesus, in Revelation 12, the same title, “woman,” given to the Eve, the sufferer of INTENSE labor pains. In other words, the “woman” title, and intense labor pains, go together.

We see John applying the “woman” title to Mary at two other points, in John’s gospel, at John 2:4 and John 19:26.

Also, note well: John lived with Mary, after the cross. Of all of the Apostles, John was in the best position to learn the details of things like Mary’s giving birth to Christ.

I think that Revelation 12 does indeed describe the intensely painful birth of Christ.

Peter
Click to expand...
Peter-

I was not sure why you took issue with my position until I re-read my own post. There, I discovered this statement:

“Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.”

This is not my position (as the post immediately above this one illustrates), and I do not know how this sentence made it into my final post…who knows what I had in mind as I was typing. I may have intended to type “Mary had normal birth pangs…” and got distracted.

I regret the confusion.
 
jamil_joseph02 said:
is Mary refered to in Rev 12 which says

Rev 12
1.And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.
**3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. **

well, Protestants in our local forums argue in this verse that since we Catholics have an image of Mary with the moon under her feet her head with 12 stars, there’s no doubt the verse refers to Mary.

and since as the verse says she was “crying out in birth pains”, there’s no truth about Immaculate Conception since if Mary was sinless, then she would not suffer pain giving birth to our Lord Jesus. But then it says clearly that “she was crying out in birth pains”?

So what’s the Church stand on this?
Click to expand...
Don’t read Revelation literally, remember that it is symbolic in many places. Mary is our mother and she does suffer “birth pain” because of us, her spiritual children when giving birth to us.
 
jamil_joseph02 said:
2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I believe it means the normal labour pains a woman would have before the fall. Words like ‘crying out’ or ‘agony’ depicts a very intense pain imo.
I’d be more comfortable in thinking it had a symbolic meaning to it instead of a strictly literal one. Perhaps these birth pains and agony of birth represented the Immaculate Heart of Mary connected to Her Son’s reasons for taking on Her flesh. A foreshadowing of events to come. Where Her heart is so closely connected to that of Her Son’s that the pain He would endure, She would likewise endure in a motherly fashion. I mean pretty much any mother would while watching their only son get beaten and die naked nailed to a cross like that before their very eyes. But of course Mary’s pain would be much more intensified than any normal mother’s.
 
mardukm said:
In the bed of Sts. Hannah and Joachim her parents. You can find an icon of the Conception of the Theotokos on this page: dce.oca.org/resources/handouts/sort-author/

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
well, so that means, when Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb as a baby, that’s when God’s grace interfered, correct?
The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.
Click to expand...
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
Click to expand...
 
jamil_joseph02 said:
well, so that means, when Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb as a baby, that’s when God’s grace interfered, correct?
Click to expand...
She was physically conceived in the normal human way. When God created her soul at the time of her conception, He preserved it from Original Sin and it’s effects.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
She was physically conceived in the normal human way. When God created her soul at the time of her conception, He preserved it from Original Sin and it’s effects.
Click to expand...
well, is death a physical effect of Original sin?

because if Mary died then wouldn’t that justify that Mary was preserved from the spiritual effects only of Original sin, but not the physical ones (ex. death, sickness, birth pain etc)?
 
jamil_joseph02 said:
well, is death a physical effect of Original sin?

because if Mary died then wouldn’t that justify that Mary was preserved from the spiritual effects only of Original sin, but not the physical ones (ex. death, sickness, birth pain etc)?
Click to expand...
Death is an effect of Original Sin. Mary could have choosen to experience death just like her son did. It’s not certain however if she did however, before her Assumption into Heaven.
 
Dear brother Jamil,
jamil_joseph02 said:
well, is death a physical effect of Original sin?

because if Mary died then wouldn’t that justify that Mary was preserved from the spiritual effects only of Original sin, but not the physical ones (ex. death, sickness, birth pain etc)?
Click to expand...
As mentioned earlier, whether Mary died or not is a theologoumenon in the Catholic Church - i.e., it has never been defined, and one is free to believe it or not.

It is also a theologoumenon HOW Mary died. Did she die because it was her natural state, or did she die because she “chose” to do so in union with her Son?

Before going on, please read this forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5594392&postcount=22. It explains the Oriental understanding of the matter, which is basically the Alexandrian position. To highlight the main point, let me just repeat:
Physical death is the NATURAL condition of all humanity. IOW, it is part of what makes us human. Mary died because she was a natural human being, like any of us. It is also the reason that our Lord Jesus was able to die - BECAUSE he was fully human.

The unity of the apostolic Churches is of great concern to me, and for that reason, not only do I not adhere to brother Rich SFO’s understanding of how Mary died, but I actually oppose it (I wouldn’t call it a heresy, but extremely dangerous and erroneous). That Mary was not naturally subject to physical death, but rather CHOSE death (the position of brother Rich SFO) is the main, if not only, source of the rejection of the dogma of the IC by our Eastern Orthodox brethren. Maintaining this belief presented by brother Rich SFO would be a sin against the unity of the Church. Certainly, since it is only theologoumenon, it would do no harm to the Faith if it was formally rejected by the Latin Church.

But aside from its necessity for the unity of the Church, it should also be rejected because it contradicts other Truths of the Catholic Faith:
  1. The Council of Trent asserted that Baptism also removes the stain of Original Sin, the same way that the Grace of the IC preserved Mary from the stain of Original Sin. Nevertheless, we still physically die. Hence, it is impossible to maintain, according to Catholic Tradition ISTM, that Mary’s preservation from the stain of Original Sin could likewise preserve her from physical death.
  2. The Bible tells us that it is only through death that we may rise anew to eternal life.
  3. It would make Mary no longer human (since physical corruptibility is part of human nature).
  4. If the Grace of the IC also made Mary immortal, then she could not have been the source of Christ’s human nature (since immortality is not part of human nature).
Blessings,
Marduk
 
Saint Ignatius

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary

Her friend(1) Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary.

Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen.

Reply of the Blessed Virgin to This Letter.

The lowly handmaid of Christ Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple.

The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith,(2) and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour.(3) Amen.

FOOTNOTES:
  1. Literally, “his own.”
  2. Some omit this word.
  3. Literally, “of herself.” Some read, instead of “de se,” “deorum,” when the translation
    will be, “the true God of gods.”
Source: searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/ignatius/view.cgi?file=anf01-36.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top