Help: Explaining the "Why" of the Immaculate Conception

[Ghosty]

Mary died, which is a result of Original Sin. Furthermore, the “pain of childbirth” from Genesis is an increase of pain, not the presence of pain in general. Also, virginal status doesn’t mean nothing passing through the vaginal canal, but sexual relations.

In other words, Mary could have given birth normally, but with less pain, or Jesus could have “appeared” outside of her womb. Personally I hold to the former view, rather than the latter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[awfulthings9]

Ghosty:

Mary died, which is a result of Original Sin. Furthermore, the “pain of childbirth” from Genesis is an increase of pain, not the presence of pain in general. Also, virginal status doesn’t mean nothing passing through the vaginal canal, but sexual relations.

In other words, Mary could have given birth normally, but with less pain, or Jesus could have “appeared” outside of her womb. Personally I hold to the former view, rather than the latter.

Peace and God bless!

Hey Ghosty,
I’m not sure how you can speak so definitively on this subject. Can you refer me to the Church documents or writings that support this. Again, I’ll quote the Council of Trent: “To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”
It seems strange that you would hold to an opinion that contradicts this statement which says that a) Mary experienced no pain (you say she did) and b) her virginal integrity was preserved inviolate. As to “b”, preserving the virginal integrity means that her womb was not opened and her hymen was kept intact. St. Thomas Aquinas confirmed this in his Summa Theologiea (III.28.2).
Also, you say above that “Mary died, which is a result of original sin.” This isn’t correct, either. First, the Church clearly teaches that, if she died, it was not the consequence of original sin, as you claim, but rather a sharing in the death of her Son because of her ultimate self-gift to God. Ott, in his *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *writes, “for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin. However, it seems fitting that Mary’s body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death” (Bk. III, Pt. 3, Ch. 2, §6).

I don’t mean to be knit-picky, but your descriptions of these two Marian doctrines run contrary to what the Catholic Church actually teaches. If you can find some support to the contrary, perhaps I’ll stand corrected. God bless.

 

[awfulthings9]

Yet, I will concede that Genesis does say “intensify” the pangs of your childbearing. However, my own opinion, formed by Genesis and the documents I quoted in the last post, is that the “pangs of your childbearing” that Eve would have experienced in the garden or that, perhaps, Mary did experience, would be more like the “good” pain we feel after exercise (responsible exercise). Her body would have had to adjust for the size of the child, resulting in muscle soreness, but there was no actual physical damage done. I don’t know - don’t jump on that part, just trying to meet you halfway, but it’s only my opinion.

 

[VociMike]

Courtneyjo:

My friend says that Christ needed to have parents who could sin in order to experience full humanity.

This man listens to logical arguments and reasoning. What should I be saying to him?

The obvious reply to that comment is that Christ needed to sin Himself in order to experience full humanity.

 

[volzcpa]

Courtneyjo:

I am having problems explaining the “why” of the Immaculate Conception to a dear friend. He understands what the Immaculate Conception is, and that it is possible, but doesn’t understand why it was necessary.

He says that Jesus wanted to have the “full human experience” when he became man, and that this would include being born to a fully human mother, human in every way including the effects of original sin. My friend says that Christ needed to have parents who could sin in order to experience full humanity.

This man listens to logical arguments and reasoning. What should I be saying to him?

I will paraphrase what I heard Patrick Madrid say on this subject. First, it was not necessary for Mary to be immaculately conceived, but it was very fitting. If you had the ability to create your own mother, wouldn’t you want to make her the perfect mother? Jesus as the creator determined that it was fitting for his mother to be conceived without original sin. Second, to answer the question that Mary called Jesus her Savior, so if she was without original sin, what was she saved from? She was saved by Jesus from original sin by prevention rather than by cure. You could say that we get ongoing grace for salvation like someone who gets annual payments when one wins the PowerBall but Mary got the cash value up front.

 

[awfulthings9]

I’d better clarify. While I never actually said that the Church has defined the painless childbirth as dogma, I did say that the Church teaches it. This is true. However, by referring to “The Council of Trent”, I understand that I gave the impression that the belief was defined infallibly, or that it was part of the infallibly defined Immaculate Conception, which isn’t the case. I should have said that my quote came from The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, which was published under the guidance of Pius IV as a follow-up to the council as a norm for priests in instructing their parishioners (see newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm). The relevant section of the actual Catechism can be accessed at truecatholic.bizland.com/Trent/tcreed03.htm. That the teaching was significant enough to be included in the catechism under the direction of the Pope makes it important and worthy of our discussion of the Immaculate Conception, but no, it doesn’t make it infallible, and we have the option to believe otherwise. I apologize for my sloppy posting and for any confusion I may have caused.

 

[Ghosty]

awfulthings9: I’m glad you posted your clarification! I was about to dig through the entire documentation of the Council of Trent to find the quotes you referenced, as I’ve read those documents before and have never come across them.

Since you were kind enough to clarify, I will do so as well. My statements were intended more as a counter-point to other views expressed here, rather than as definative dogmatic statements. While the view you’ve expressed is allowed within the Catholic Church, so is mine. Nothing firm from the Magisterium has defined the issue either way, and I’m happy to leave it at that. While the teaching after Trent favored your view, it must be remembered that the teaching after Trent also favored the concept of Limbo, which is now not formally endorsed by the Church. Furthermore, the endorsement of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, whom I have the utmost veneration of (and I consider myself a Thomist), doesn’t amount to an authoritative statement. I can just as easily argue from a Thomistic standpoint that Mary did feel some pains of childbirth, and St. Thomas Aquinas did deny the idea of the Immaculate Conception in his arguments.

This is an area of liberty for Catholics, and honestly I feel that’s for the best since childbirth is not something that all people can enjoy.

In short, don’t take my statements as authoritatively as I put them forth. They were meant simply as a counter, not as a doctrinal exposition. In my own devotion, and the devotion of many others, the idea that Mary did not give birth to Jesus naturally is a bit disturbing, and I hope to preserve the faith of those like myself by reemphasizing the fact that we are free to believe either way.

Peace and God bless!

 

[puzzleannie]

Ghosty:

Mary died, which is a result of Original Sin. !

this is not absolutely defined as dogma, in fact the Eastern Churches venerate the Dormition of Mary. The Latin Church venerates the Assumption of Mary into heaven, without absolutely declaring that she died first.

 

[awfulthings9]

Ghosty:

awfulthings9: I’m glad you posted your clarification! I was about to dig through the entire documentation of the Council of Trent to find the quotes you referenced, as I’ve read those documents before and have never come across them.

Since you were kind enough to clarify, I will do so as well. My statements were intended more as a counter-point to other views expressed here, rather than as definative dogmatic statements …

I feel as thought I’ve learned something valuable since this discussion prompted me to dig deeper. And if these forums aren’t here to help us become more seasoned and more knowledgeable, rather than just to spout off what we know, they’ve lost half their value. I think it’s cool that, even in our disagreement, we can handle things in a charitable and mature way as the love of Christ shines through our discussion. God bless to all - I’m off to see The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (my Protestant correspondent Timothy - see "Infallibility Disproven???, also in Apologetics - invited me and my wife to a free showing - talk about a classy guy).

 

[Todd_Easton]

Courtneyjo:

I am having problems explaining the “why” of the Immaculate Conception to a dear friend. He understands what the Immaculate Conception is, and that it is possible, but doesn’t understand why it was necessary.

The Immaculate Conception was not absolutely necessary because God could have brought about the redemption of mankind by any number of ways. However, the Immaculate Conception was part of an altogether fitting choice by God. In the beginning (Genesis 3), it was the disobedience of both a man and woman (Adam and Eve), who had previously been sinless from the first moment of their existance, that brought about the Fall of Mankind. Therefore, if was fitting that God should choose to bring about the redemption of mankind in a manner similar to how it fell. God chose to bring about the redemption of mankind though the obedience of both a man and a woman (Jesus and Mary) who were sinless from the first moment of their existance.

Hints of this choice of a holy duo (Jesus and Mary) can be found throughout Sacred Scripture: in Genesis 3:15, as the woman and her offspring; in Psalm 86:17 and Psalm 116:16, as the handmaid of the Lord and her son, the servant of the Lord; and in Isaiah 7:14, as the virgin and her son; and in Revelation 12, as the woman and her son. Of course, they can also be found plainly in Matthew 1 and Luke 1.

 

[trustmc]

awfulthings9:

…preserving the virginal integrity means that her womb was not opened and her hymen was kept intact. St. Thomas Aquinas confirmed this in his Summa Theologiea (III.28.2).

While Summa is certainlly an authoritative text on Catholic teaching, it is not infallible. No one theologian can have that gift as infallibility is preserved only for the Magisterium and the Pope.

That said, I would have to disagree with Aquinas on this issue. While I’m sure he has made a forceful arguement for that Mary’s hymen was kept intact, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus did not pass through her birth canal. Along the same line of reasoning, a woman who has never had sex, but has nonetheless “broken” her hymen (as with an athletic injury) doesn’t lose her virginity in the process, does she?

Ezekiel 44:1-2 is a passage often referred to by the early Fathers that prophesizes how Christ’s birth could nonetheless preserve the integrity of Mary’s womb. Regarding the newly built Temple, it reads: “Then He [the Lord] brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the Lord said to me, ‘This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.’”

The parallel imagery here is quite telling. God passes through the eastern gate of the Temple, so no other man is worthy to pass through it thereafter. Jesus, being both fully divine and fully human, passes through Mary’s birth canal, so too no other man is worthy to pass through it thereafter. That Mary’s virginity was kept intact after Christ’s birth is predicated on Christ actually having been born by natural means. If Christ merely “materialized” outside the womb and did not enter the world through the “gate” of Mary’s loins, then there would have been no reason for Mary’s virginity to have been preserved from a subsequent entrance by even her lawful husband, Joseph. Further, the teaching of Mary’s perpetual viriginity only reenforces the doctrine of the Incarnation.

I can not say if this arguement is difinitive teaching, but it does give us something to think about and perhaps use to explain from scripture Mary’s perpetual virginity to our bible-literate Protestant bretheren.

Mike

 

[John_Taylor]

Courtneyjo:

I am having problems explaining the “why” of the Immaculate Conception to a dear friend. He understands what the Immaculate Conception is, and that it is possible, but doesn’t understand why it was necessary.

He says that Jesus wanted to have the “full human experience” when he became man, and that this would include being born to a fully human mother, human in every way including the effects of original sin. My friend says that Christ needed to have parents who could sin in order to experience full humanity.

This man listens to logical arguments and reasoning. What should I be saying to him?

My apologies if this has already been pointed out…I’m being lazy and not reading through the whole thread (shame on me)…my problem with your friend’s objection is that he is essentially saying that inorder to be “fully human” Jesus has to "experience sin - and that we know from Scripture is simply erroneous…Jesus was “fully man” yet “without sin”…what your friend fails to appreciate is that sin makes us “less human” not more so.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[John_Taylor]

awfulthings9 …preserving the virginal integrity means that her womb was not opened and her hymen was kept intact. St. Thomas Aquinas confirmed this in his Summa Theologiea (III.28.2).

Mike …I would have to disagree with Aquinas on this issue. While I’m sure he has made a forceful argument for that Mary’s hymen was kept intact, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus did not pass through her birth canal. Along the same line of reasoning, a woman who has never had sex, but has nonetheless “broken” her hymen (as with an athletic injury) doesn’t lose her virginity in the process, does she?

John…I’ll have to look this up and report when I get home tonight, but I remember this issue being addressed in Dr Ott’s, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Ott notes that the early Church Fathers understood Mary’s hymen to be miraculously preserved intact. They thought of our Lord’s passage through Mary’s womb as indeed a physical reality but of the same nature as our Lord’s physical but miraculous post-Resurrection passage through “closed doors” to appear before His Disciples.

I’ll look up and post what I find.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[John_Taylor]

Dr David Reagan of Lamb & Lion Ministries wrote in his newsletter Lamplighter (Vol xiii, March 1992, No. 2) that “Catholic doctrine depreciates the significance of Jesus. For example, the tremendous importance of His Incarnation is diminished by the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.”

I wrote Dr Reagan and asked him to consider the following analogy (which I heard preached at St Elizabeth of the Hill Country Catholic Church in Boone, NC) :

A King rules a realm inwhich his subjects are lowly and rebellious. Yet the King loves them very much. He wishes to reconcile his subjects to himself. So he determines to send them a gift - a very fine and precious gift. He hopes that by doing so peace may be established between himself and his subjects, that his love for them may become known to them, and that their love in return may be drawn.

The Kings counselors advise him that the gift may be sent either one of two ways: (1) It may wrapped in a soiled paper bag which once lined a garbage pail, or (2) the gift may be wrapped in beautiful and costly paper.

By which one of these two ways is the King’s gift more highly honored and esteemed?

Mary’s Immaculate Conception is that “beautiful and costly paper” by which our Lord is presented to mankind as gift. The significance of our Lord’s Incarnation is in no way “diminished by Mary’s Immaculate Conception” - rather it is enhanced and glorified in keeping with God’s Inspired Word spoken through Mary:

“My soul magnifies the Lord” (Lk 1:46).

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[John_Taylor]

…this is with regards to the question on Mary’s Perpetual “physical” Virginity…from Dr Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under Pope Martin I, stressed the threefold character of Mary’s virginity teaching of the “blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary” that: “she conceived without seed, of the Holy Spirit, generated without injury (to her virginity), and her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth” (D 256)…Mary’s virginity includes virginitas mentis, that is, a constant virginal disposition, virginitas sensus, that is, freedom from inordinate motions of sexual desire, and virginitas corporis, that is, physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers primarily to her bodily integrity.

1. Virginity Before the Birth. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man. (De fide)…

(continued)

 

[John_Taylor]

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr Ott:

2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus. Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine)

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pain. (cf. S. th. III 28,2)

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfillment of the sex act (“sex-act virginity”) and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed (“seed-act virginity”) (A.Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seems to belong to complete natural motherhood. It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation. Holy Writ attests Mary’s active role in the act of birth (Mt 1, 25: Lk 2,7: “She brought forth”) which does not seem to indicate a miraculous process.

But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth. however, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary’s Virginity, from an inadequate scientific point of view. It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Motherhood of God demands a miraculous birth.

Mary’s virginity during the birth of Jesus was contested in the Early Church by Tertullian (De carne Christi 23) and especially by Jovinian, an opponent of the Church ideal of virginal purity: and in modern times by Rationalists (Harnack calls it: “a Gnostic invention”).

Jovinian’s teaching (virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit) was rejected at a Synod at Milan (390) under the presidency of St Ambrose (cf., Ep. 42)…Her virginity during the birth of Jesus is included in the title of honor “perpetual virgin” which was given to Mary by the Fifth General council at Constantinople (533) (D 214, 218, 227). The doctrine is expressly taught by Pope St Leo I in the Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum (Ep 28,2) which was approved by the Council of Chalcedon; it was taught also by the Lateran Synod (649) and by Pope Paul IV (1555) (D 256, 993). Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” says:

“It was she who gave miraculous birth to Christ our Lord.”

The Church’s general teaching is expressed in Her Liturgy also. Cf. the Responsorium to the fifth Lesson of the Feast of Christmas, and to the eighth Lesson of the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord.

Is 7,14 announces that the maiden (as a virgin) would give birth. The Fathers also, in a typical sense, refer to the virgin birth of Our Lord the words if the Prophet Ezekiel on the closed gates (Ez 44,2; cf. St Ambrose Ep 42,6; St Jerome ep 49,21): the words of the Prophet Isaias on the painless birth (Is 66,7); cg, St. Irenaeus, Epis. 54; St John Damascene, De fide orth. IV 14: and the words of the Song of songs on the closed garden and the sealed well (Hl. 4,12; cf St Jerome. Adv. Jov. I 31, Ep 49,21)

St Ignatius of Antioch characterizes, not merely Mary’s Virginity, but also the bringing forth of her Son as a “mystery which must be proclaimed aloud” (Eph 19,1). Christ’s virginal birth is accepted without question…by Church authors such as St Irenaeus (Epid. 54; adv.haer. III 21,4-6): St Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VII 16,93); Origen (In. Lev. hom 8,2: otherwise in Luc. hom. 14) and Augustine (Enchir.34) defend the traditional Church doctrine against Jovinian. For the illustration of the mystery the Fathers and Theologians employ various analogues = the emergence of Christ from the sealed tomb, His going through closed doors, the penetration of the ray of the sun through glass, the birth of the Logos from the bosom of the Father, the going out of human thought from the human spirit.

Christ’s miraculous emergence from the unimpaired womb of the Virgin Mother finds its ultimate explanation in the Omnipotence of God. St Augustine says: “in such things the whole ground of the mystery is the might of Him who permits it to happen” (Ep. 137,2,8). Cf.S.th III 28,2.

3. Virginity After the Birth of Jesus. Also after the birth of Jesus Mary remained a virgin. (De fide)…

I gathered from the above that the Church affirms Mary’s “physical” Virginity as extending the whole of her life: before, during, and after our Lord’s birth.

jmt

 

[GoodME]

Had a question.

Is it the correctly instructed theology that Mary had to be a sinless virgin in order to conceive a sinless Savior, or would Jesus have been sinless anyway, due to His divinity?

There are some good posts about places that God dwells being purged and the parallels one can draw between the OT ark and the Garden of Eden, and the purity of Mary. However, is it the case that flesh is flesh and sin is determined by how it is operated, and since Jesus operated it to perfection, the qualities of the flesh were of no consequence? Or is it the case that although the soul operates the flesh, the flesh still has to be uncorrupted, and since Jesus inherited flesh from Mary, that flesh had to be pure?

Uhhh…help.

 

[GoodME]

Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seems to belong to complete natural motherhood.

While this level of detail and scrutiny is fascinating, what lesson are we to take from it regarding the formation of our faith? Is it really necessary to shave the dog hairless? Can’t we just give him a bit of a trim and good brushing, and call it done?

 

[Myuutsu]

I actually have something to say about this.

An important doctrine in ANY type of chrisitian church is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Protestants usually end it there, and Catholics generally say that Mary was a continual virgin after she was born and was sinless.

One thing I must point out, and while many might disagree with it, this is the standpoint I’ve come to take. When you think about it, I think it’s only Matthew and Luke who made references to the virginity of Mary. The fact that Paul and even John seemed to be oblivious to this fact is very hard to believe. My stance on this is, like others who are more professionals in this realm, is that the virgin birth was either copied down wrong (or stolen from another religion) or, it was simply a translator’s mistake. The latter is probably more easily believable, because quite a few translations of the core Bible books (By core, I mean the ones accepted as canon by all sects of Christianity) that have “young woman” instead of “virgin.”

My main source of information is from Religious Tolerance, which, for the uninformed, is a website that discusses religions around the world and sensitive issues within religions as unbiasedly as humanly possible. Of course, their’s always some bias, but they generally do a good job of keeping it free of that. There are quite a few sites out there that offer pro-virgin birth and anti-virgin birth; both are just a google search away.

 

[Benadam]

Jesus would have to teach about perfect love without having experinced it. He would have to teach that we are to be perfect without ever having experienced it.

Mary’s perfection isn’t required for her bodily assumption anyway since the bodies of many OT saints rose up out of their graves and appeared to many in Jerusalem when Jesus died and again when He ressurrected. It seems probable that if OT saints were called to the ressurection that the Mother of the Ressurection would be as well.

Also, the first Adam’s flesh was formed out of a sinless earth it is only fitting that a person refered to as a second of the same would be as well.