If Mary were not Immaculately Conceived

[coolduude]

I heard that once in a post, but I can’t recall all the logic behind it; maybe you guys can help me out.

Basically, the poster said that if Mary was not Immaculately Conceived, then that forces Jesus to be Immaculately conceived, which is blasphemy because He is God and does not need to.

I know this post is probably 100% wrong about Jesus and being Immaculately conceived, but it’s all I can remember for now. Maybe if some questions come up, I’ll be able to remember more.

Sorry for the missing details

coolduude

 

[Matorin]

Jesus was immaculately conceived…by the very definition of immaculate and conception.

 

[coolduude]

Jesus was immaculately conceived…by the very definition of immaculate and conception.

Yes yes I suppose that’s true.

Man, I’m confusing myself on this one!

 

[super_squirrel]

“If Mary were not Immaculately Concieved”

Then Original Sin is a fraud and we’d all be Eastern Orthodox

 

[UponTheAltar]

“If Mary were not Immaculately Concieved”

Then Original Sin is a fraud and we’d all be Eastern Orthodox

Maybe… But, even if she had not been immaculately conceived she would still have been the Queen of Heaven and Earth because she is the mother of God, the King of Kings and in the line of David the Queen has always been the Mother of the King, not the wife. So, she still would have been the greatest saint of all time, next to Jesus, King of Saints of course!

But, none of this matters because she WAS immaculately conceived!

 

[ZDHayden]

This is something that I’ve thought of, after a period of reflection. If this is out of line of Catholic teaching, I hope someone will tell me. This was entirely from a usage of simple reasoning and logic:

If Mary was not Immaculately conceived, i.e, conceived and born without the taint of Original Sin, she could not have become the mother of Jesus. This is because, as Jesus is fully God and fully Man by nature, and God cannot stand sin, Mary, who carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus, not just a human nature, would not have survived her pregnancy. We see in the Old Testament the statement that a mortal would die if in direct contact with God (sight being the most common manifestation of this statement). Since pregnancy is about as direct of contact as any human can get to another, it stands to reason that Mary, a human being, must have been born without the stain of sin in order for her to be a perfect vessel for Jesus to come into the world.

 

[Nita]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception was a gift from God because He willed it to be so – not from any necessity arising because Our Lord would receive His flesh from her, and would dwell in her for 9 months. (Consider that we receive Jesus within us in the Eucharist even tho we are not “immaculate”/immaculately conceived.)

I don’t understand how someone would consider it to be blasphemy to believe that Mary’s Immaculate Conception (or lack of it) would affect the “immaculateness” of Our Lord’s conception. The doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception refers to the state of her soul. Humans do not receive their soul from their parents (each soul is created by God) – therefore, the state of Mary’s soul would not have a bearing on the state of Jesus’ soul.

 

[Crown_of_Thorns]

I heard that once in a post, but I can’t recall all the logic behind it; maybe you guys can help me out.

Basically, the poster said that if Mary was not Immaculately Conceived, then that forces Jesus to be Immaculately conceived, which is blasphemy because He is God and does not need to.

I know this post is probably 100% wrong about Jesus and being Immaculately conceived, but it’s all I can remember for now. Maybe if some questions come up, I’ll be able to remember more.

Sorry for the missing details

coolduude

I asked a very similar question in another post namely

Hi everyone,

Having recently read Fulton Sheen’s The World’s First Love and also heard one of his talks from the catechism series, I think I have understood his explanation of the Immaculate Conception as follows:

1. Mary is conceived without original sin by a grace received in view of the life, death and resurrection of Christ in the future.
2. Mary was born w/o original sin and preserved from all personal sin by a special gift from God. Therefore, she was able to pass on a sinless humanity to Christ.
   
   ​
   i) If Christ had been born a sinner, his humanity would have been corrupted by sin.
   
   ​
   ii) If he had been born of a sinner, but himself receiving a grace of immaculate conception, then because the grace is received in view of the passion of Christ, he would, in effect have been redeeming himself - which doesn’t work.

Therefore, God chose to give Mary the special graces she received.

You can see the answers I received here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478756

Nobody has really satisfactorily explained/refuted the logic.

 

[Crumpy]

The Immaculate Conception is certainly one of the most abstract teachings of the Catholic Church.

It’s hard for me to read the explanations relating to necessity, that Mary HAD to be immaculately conceived. Throughout the Old Testament period, God used people He had at hand. All of them were made in His image and likeness.

It’s hard for me to read the explanations that she IS immaculately conceived, because the fact in view is one that could not be and was not directly observed.

It’s hard for me to read that Mary was sinless throughout her life, because I don’t know of anybody saying that they observed that and reported that.

We do see in scripture times and events and places where Mary is present, and she even speaks. She speaks with special regard for Jesus, not as we might expect a mother to even lovingly discipline her child. She speaks with hope and love, in a way that we wouldn’t forget it, if we had been there ourselves to witness it. The reports seems very plausible and credible.

But, the immaculate conception is a belief that seems to emerge from misty traditions. And adherence and acceptance of the IC, her assumption, and her coronation seem to flow from an intangible mystical understanding of Mary. As the saying goes, these are dogmas where our senses fail to reward us with direct vision and experience.

If Mary was IC’d as our faith tells us, then it seems that the immediate consequence was on her and for her. I’ve said in these forums what might seem almost heretical or blasphemous, if she was IC’d, what is that to me?

If Mary was IC’d, that makes it only harder for me to imitate her virtue, because I am just so much more flawed, to begin with. Even Jesus was tempted as mortal men are tempted, what to make of Mary who simply could not have been better than Jesus, for sure.

Our Catholic faith does not require that we believe the special revelations about Mary – Fatima, Lourdes, whatever. I wrote Fr. Mark at EWTN about this, and asked him why EWTN teaches and preaches about these, even in Mass homilies, on a par with dogmas and doctrines that DO require the assent of faith. Generally he defended the practice as being what the Church does for our spiritual edification. But, why do I need more than Jesus?

I don’t viscerally disagree that Mary was not IC’d. I just wonder what it is supposed to mean to me that she was IC’d?

I do know people who are virtually in love with Mary, believe that she is constantly appearing and giving messages to individual people, and such. They love Mary to the point of tears. They want to share her suffering. As the scripture says, faith is a gift; if people have that faith – and need that faith – then thank God that they have it.

I’ve seen that publication about those people who are almost hysterical about Fatima and its secrets. I do not understand such obsession. I resent that people are taking private revelation and attempting to make it general revelation, that we all must believe in and accept.

If all this weren’t enough, we have that Polish nun who claims to have seen Jesus during her lifetime, and now we have devotions to “the” Divine Mercy. What is “the” Divine Mercy except that which we have always known through the general revelation of scripture? making something that was once adequate into something inadequate (scripture) so that we should chase after the “new” revelations?

Gimme that ole time Catholic religion. Why can’t I just be a 5th or 6th Century Catholic, and leave it at that? Why do we have the unconvincing standard that such and such things are not incompatible with scripture? Who cares about that? You have to remind me about the “development” of doctrine?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Any assertion that it was necessary for the Virgin Mary to be conceived immaculately goes beyond what the Catholic Church actually teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that her immaculate conception was fitting, not that it was necessary:
The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 722)
If the Virgin Mary needed to be conceived immaculately in order to pass on a sinless human nature to her son, Jesus Christ, then by the same logic, Mary’s parents and all of her ancestors back to Adam and Eve needed to be conceived immaculately. Also, if God could intervene and conceive Mary immaculately though her parents were not conceived immaculately, then God could just as easily intervene and conceive Jesus Christ immaculately, without Mary necessarily being conceived immaculately.

In the Old Testament, a fitting vessel (the ark of the Covenant) was prepared to carry God’s word (the Ten Commandments) inscribed on stone tablets, a new wooden box covered with pure gold inside and out. The tablets could have been carried around in a used burlap sack but because of their holiness it was more fitting that they should be carried around in a new wooden box covered with gold inside and out. The situation with Jesus Christ and his mother, the Virgin Mary, is similar and is the reason why the Virgin Mary is sometimes called the ark of the New Covenant. (Revelation 11:19-12:1) God’s Word, Jesus Christ, could have been conceived and carried in the womb of the town prostitute but because of his holiness it was more fitting that his mother should be conceived immaculately and living a sinless life.

 

[Nita]

Any assertion that it was necessary for the Virgin Mary to be conceived immaculately goes beyond what the Catholic Church actually teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that her immaculate conception was fitting, not that it was necessary:
The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 722)
If the Virgin Mary needed to be conceived immaculately in order to pass on a sinless human nature to her son, Jesus Christ, then by the same logic, Mary’s parents and all of her ancestors back to Adam and Eve needed to be conceived immaculately. Also, if God could intervene and conceive Mary immaculately though her parents were not conceived immaculately, then God could just as easily intervene and conceive Jesus Christ immaculately, without Mary necessarily being conceived immaculately.

In the Old Testament, a fitting vessel (the ark of the Covenant) was prepared to carry God’s word (the Ten Commandments) inscribed on stone tablets, a new wooden box covered with pure gold inside and out. The tablets could have been carried around in a used burlap sack but because of their holiness it was more fitting that they should be carried around in a new wooden box covered with gold inside and out. The situation with Jesus Christ and his mother, the Virgin Mary, is similar and is the reason why the Virgin Mary is sometimes called the ark of the New Covenant. (Revelation 11:19-12:1) God’s Word, Jesus Christ, could have been conceived and carried in the womb of the town prostitute but because of his holiness it was more fitting that his mother should be conceived immaculately and living a sinless life.

Well said.

 

[PJM]

=coolduude;6930661]I heard that once in a post, but I can’t recall all the logic behind it; maybe you guys can help me out.

Basically, the poster said that if Mary was not Immaculately Conceived, then that forces Jesus to be Immaculately conceived, which is blasphemy because He is God and does not need to.

I know this post is probably 100% wrong about Jesus and being Immaculately conceived, but it’s all I can remember for now. Maybe if some questions come up, I’ll be able to remember more.

Sorry for the missing details

coolduude

Biblical misunderstaning seem to b a near constant state of BLISS for many none Catholics [and yes; even for some Catholics.]

IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE: MARY HAD TO BE Perfect so that Jesus Christ; the Son of the Living God could issue forth from a human person. No other seniero could be posible.

A Perfect God [Jesus] could NOT be born through an imperfect women.

Once again we see a lack of common sense being applied to ones own logic on a topic that they neither understand or for that matter; desire to understand.

 

[Nita]

Biblical misunderstaning seem to b a near constant state of BLISS for many none Catholics [and yes; even for some Catholics.]

IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE: MARY HAD TO BE Perfect so that Jesus Christ; the Son of the Living God could issue forth from a human person. No other seniero could be posible.

A Perfect God [Jesus] could NOT be born through an imperfect women.

Once again we see a lack of common sense being applied to ones own logic on a topic that they neither understand or for that matter; desire to understand.

Please provide a definition of what you mean by “Absolute Sense”.

 

[Nita]

Too late to edit, so,
In reference to my above post asking for your definition of “absolute sense”:

1. Are you saying that once God decided to take human flesh from a woman, He had no choice but to make that woman immaculate (body and soul) — in other words, God was compelled to do it.
2. Or are you saying that God could have decided either to make Mary immaculate, or not to make her immaculate – but* once He decided *to make Mary immaculate, it was necessary - since God does not lie, or change.

 

[PJM]

=Nita;6936694]Please provide a definition of what you mean by “Absolute Sense”.

By “Absolute sense” I [and God] mean that it could not have happened any other way in fulfillment of the Incarnation. IMPOSSIBLE!

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Nita]

By “Absolute sense” I [and God] mean that it could not have happened any other way in fulfillment of the Incarnation. IMPOSSIBLE!

Love and prayers,
Pat

Well, since it’s the Church, and not you, who speaks for God, could you please give a reference to the Church teaching/document that says it was** impossible **for God not to make Mary immaculate if she was to be the mother of Jesus.

 

[PJM]

=Nita;6939732]Well, since it’s the Church, and not you, who speaks for God, could you please give a reference to the Church teaching/document that says it was** impossible **for God not to make Mary immaculate if she was to be the mother of Jesus.

Matt.5: 48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Because the Trinity consist of three “persons” BUT ONLY ONE NATURE, Christ being God had to be perfect.

Perfect God / man CANNOT issue forth from imperfect woman.

**From the Catholic Catechism:

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life. **

Now a bit if common-sense and logic is involved:

Just as in Luke Chapter ONE vrs,26-36

Jesus is God

Mary is the Mother of Jesus = Mary must be the Mother of God.

Jesus is God

God is PERFECT= Mary HAD to be perfect IF God’s Plan of the Incarnation was to be fulfilled.

COULD GOD HAVE CHOSEN ANOTHER WAY FOR OUR REDEEMPTION? Of Course; BUT HE DIDN’T.

Oh yea of little faith an even less understanding.

John 20: 29-31 “Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

**John 21:24-25 **"This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

MY dear friend in Christ you might try being logical rather than clever. This isn’t all that hard to discern.

May God grant you a measure of Wisdom and Understanding instead of pride.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Nita]

Perfect God / man CANNOT issue forth from imperfect woman.

Who said?

**From the Catholic Catechism:

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life. **

Now a bit if common-sense and logic is involved:

Just as in Luke Chapter ONE vrs,26-36

Jesus is God

Mary is the Mother of Jesus = Mary must be the Mother of God.

Jesus is God

God is PERFECT= Mary HAD to be perfect IF God’s Plan of the Incarnation was to be fulfilled.

COULD GOD HAVE CHOSEN ANOTHER WAY FOR OUR REDEEMPTION? Of Course; BUT HE DIDN’T.

Oh yea of little faith an even less understanding.

John 20: 29-31 “Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

**John 21:24-25 **"This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

MY dear friend in Christ you might try being logical rather than clever. This isn’t all that hard to discern.

May God grant you a measure of Wisdom and Understanding instead of pride.

Love and prayers,

Pat

You have not cited one single Church document that officially teaches God HAD to have Mary immaculately conceived, so I’m assuming you recognize that it (underlined portion) is NOT a teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you have given are your personal reasonings and interpretations. I don’t have a problem with personal opinions – except when a Catholic passes them off as absolute truth – without making it clear that it is personal opinion and not official teaching of the Church. It’s a great gift to be Catholic; but it carries some responsibilities. The gift of infallibility to the Church is well know by others. When you label yourself “Catholic” you have a responsibility to be sure what you proclaim to be “absolute truth” indeed is a reflection of actual Church teaching.

The Church teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived.
The Church does not teach that God had to have her be conceived immaculately.

Are you pushing for the EO teaching that all humans are immaculately conceived?

 

[PJM]

Who said?

You have not cited one single Church document that officially teaches God HAD to have Mary immaculately conceived, so I’m assuming you recognize that it (underlined portion) is NOT a teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you have given are your personal reasonings and interpretations. I don’t have a problem with personal opinions – except when a Catholic passes them off as absolute truth – without making it clear that it is personal opinion and not official teaching of the Church. It’s a great gift to be Catholic; but it carries some responsibilities. The gift of infallibility to the Church is well know by others. When you label yourself “Catholic” you have a responsibility to be sure what you proclaim to be “absolute truth” indeed is a reflection of actual Church teaching.

The Church teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived.
The Church does not teach that God had to have her be conceived immaculately.

Are you pushing for the EO teaching that all humans are immaculately conceived?

What ever you say friend.

 

[Scarab495]

Matt.5: 48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

I want to say that while I have no doubt that Mary was Immaculately conceived I have always thought this logic was kinda (for lack of a better word) dumb.

Basically this is saying since Jesus is perfect Mary too had to be perfect.

Well that would also mean that Mary’s mother too would have had to have been perfect. IT leads to an infinite regress.