Immaculate Conception Question

[pablope]

I was taught that not only about the Immaculate Conception but also that Mary was forever Virgin. But I read in Matthew chapter one, verses 24-25 (Catholic Bible) When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. he had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. In the King James Bible it reads “knew her not until she bore a son, etc”. The Modern Language Bible buts it, " but he had no marital relations with her, etc".

Was Mary for ever virgin?

Yes. The disbelief in Mary’s perpetual virginity only started sometime in the late 1800s to early 1900s. For the first 1700 years of christianity, nobody questioned it. Those who question her PV often cite this verse, as proof, and has been continously refuted.

 

[SonCatcher]

I was taught that not only about the Immaculate Conception but also that Mary was forever Virgin. But I read in Matthew chapter one, verses 24-25 (Catholic Bible) When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. he had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. In the King James Bible it reads “knew her not until she bore a son, etc”. The Modern Language Bible buts it, " but he had no marital relations with her, etc".

Was Mary for ever virgin?

That word, “until,” speaks of before the event, not after. It is to emphasize that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin. It is not possible in English or Greek to determine anything about afterward based on its use.

BTW - the purpose of the thread is concerning the nature of Mary’s conception within her mother (Jesus’ grandmother), not Jesus’ conception within Mary.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

If the ark of the old covenant was kept clean, how much more the ark of the new covenant should be kept clean!

 

[Salvatore123]

One would think that with ALL the evil in the world, all the avarice, the inhumanity, the war, the famine, the lying, the stealing, the barbarity - protestants would focus on something such as those things to turn their wrath and energy to . . .

Yet, they find time to basically attack the mother of Jesus Christ . . .

THE MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST!!!

How do YOU protestants feel when someone disparages your mother? Do you take that kindly?

What do you think Christ thinks and feels when you people disparage HIS mother?

I hope, for your sake, you protestants who say “negative” (and I am being quite charitable, considering some of the things I have heard protestants say when referring to Christ’s mother) have a change of heart and mind before you die and meet Christ face to face . . .

 

[PJM]

=Boulder257;7858832]Recently I read an article that argued that Mary could not have been Immaculately Conceived, because then Her mother would have had to have been Immacutalely conceived, and so on. Obviously not accurate according to Catholic Doctrine, but I am curious how some of you would respond to such a theory as I cannot produce a reasonably worded response.

Of “little Faith” or GREAT Faith that is misinformed; the results are the same. WRONG!

God has shown time after time that He can, will and does any good thing it please Him to do.

Humanity often wants to be on the same level with God intellectually; and it’s an impossibility.

Faith IS FAITH because so much of it is a MYSTERY; which by defination we cannot comprehend.

**Isaiah 55: 6-12 **[6] "Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, ***so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it. ***

Just as God parted the Red sea, Provided Manna; chaged water into wine; raised the dead, walked on water and turns bread and wind into His REAL SELF… God can Do ANY GOOD THING.

“If we are not going to beliefe God; at least believe in the signs and Wonders God has wrought.”

MARY Precisely because SHE was to come the Mother of a PERFECT GOD; as a singular Miracle was TOO PERFECTED as was in an absolute sense necessary for Jesus to be a PERFECT God / man. That was not an essentail treuth of Mary’s Mother.
She bore Mary; NOT GOD!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[pablope]

One would think that with ALL the evil in the world, all the avarice, the inhumanity, the war, the famine, the lying, the stealing, the barbarity - protestants would focus on something such as those things to turn their wrath and energy to . . .

Yet, they find time to basically attack the mother of Jesus Christ . . .

THE MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST!!!

How do YOU protestants feel when someone disparages your mother? Do you take that kindly?

What do you think Christ thinks and feels when you people disparage HIS mother?

I hope, for your sake, you protestants who say “negative” (and I am being quite charitable, considering some of the things I have heard protestants say when referring to Christ’s mother) have a change of heart and mind before you die and meet Christ face to face . . .

Even demons fear her…catholicnewsagency.com/news/romes-exorcist-finding-bl.-john-paul-ii-effective-against-satan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-vatican+%28CNA+Daily+News±+Vatican%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

[SIGN]And the most powerful intercessor of all?

“Of course, the Madonna is even more effective. Ah, when you invoke Mary!”

“And, once I also asked Satan, ‘but why are you more scared when I invoke Our Lady than when I invoke Jesus Christ?’ He answered me, ‘Because I am more humiliated to be defeated by a human creature than being defeated by him.” [/SIGN]

Apparently, our protestant brethen have no fear of the BVM…what they do not realize is by hurting or questioning and demeaning her, they are also hurting her Son. I asked a protestant once about this…don’t you think by hurting the BVM, you are also not hurting the Son and the Son is not taking note of this?

Of course, there is the bird chirping…no reply.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Bussi 
I did not see, in any of the preceding posts, any mention of why Mary could be and was conceived without sin before Jesus established the Sacrament of Baptism.

REPLY: Consider this:

Mary was purely human, as human as we are, and as such she was subject to Original Sin without a doubt.

However, Jesus, God Himself, in choosing Mary to be holy tabernacle in which he would take on a complete second human nature in hypostatic union with His Divine Nature, required a human tabernacle absent of any sin.

God, who lives in the ever present Now, seeing, knowing, and existing in all eternity, does not experience time as we humans do, and being able to act both forward and backward in our time as we experience it, Mary was preserved from Original Sin because of the merits of her Divine Son Jesus, who, by His Passion, Death, and Resurrection

Here is the Biblical reference you asked about: their may be others aw well?

**Luke.1: 26 to 35 ** “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God“

The QUESTION now becomes WHY?

Answer: Because God and HAS TO BE [remain] Perfect; He could ONLY be given Birth by One Perfected. This was and is a singular privilege and Miracle of God for Mary His Mother.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Ohaillin]

I have been reading through this thread in search of an answer to a question I have about original sin and the immaculate conception. Admittedly, I have skipped several posts due to time contraints, so I may be asking something that has already be addressed. My question, however, is this:

From my reading of Catholic dogma, original sin is contracted through procreation. This would mean that all who are born in Adam are stained with original sin. Correct? However, in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s case, God intervened to keep her preserved from the stain of original sin - at conception? at birth? after birth? I am foggy on this part. I can accept that God’s grace is sufficient to preserve her as the "Ark of God,’ but am a bit confused about how this is understood practically.

One Catholic writer implied she was kept from original sin after her birth, which I took to mean original sin was something that was “caught” after birth. My evangelical background has always held it is something we are born with.

 

[Joe_5859]

I have been reading through this thread in search of an answer to a question I have about original sin and the immaculate conception. Admittedly, I have skipped several posts due to time contraints, so I may be asking something that has already be addressed. My question, however, is this:

From my reading of Catholic dogma, original sin is contracted through procreation. This would mean that all who are born in Adam are stained with original sin. Correct? However, in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s case, God intervened to keep her preserved from the stain of original sin - at conception? at birth? after birth? I am foggy on this part. I can accept that God’s grace is sufficient to preserve her as the "Ark of God,’ but am a bit confused about how this is understood practically.

One Catholic writer implied she was kept from original sin after her birth, which I took to mean original sin was something that was “caught” after birth. My evangelical background has always held it is something we are born with.

Welcome to CAF!

I think your understanding of what Catholics believe about this is largely on the mark.

Original Sin is the state we are all born into as a result of Adam & Eve’s disobedience. Properly understood, it is a state, not an act – a sin contracted, not committed. I think that saying it is contracted “through procreation” might not be the best way to put it. The reason I say that is because I think it might lead people to incorrectly believe (as my English professor in college did) that Catholics think Original Sin is passed on because the procreative act itself is somehow sinful (even within marriage). That is not what Catholics believe.

Catholics believe that God preserved Mary from the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception (hence the title “Immaculate Conception”).

I cannot comment directly about the Catholic writer you speak of, but perhaps he was talking about how Mary was kept from sin in general after her birth, not Original Sin. Not only was Mary conceived without inheriting the Original Sin the rest of us do, but she also managed (with the grace of God, of course) to not commit any actual sins throughout her life.

In other words, there are two ways in which Catholics might speak of Mary being free from sin:

1. 
   *]free from contracting Original Sin at the moment of conception (when we all contract it); and
   *]free from committing any actual sins throughout her life (which would be after birth, because we cannot commit any sins prior to being born )
   
   Does that help clarify things?

 

[zach_dunn]

I have been reading through this thread in search of an answer to a question I have about original sin and the immaculate conception. Admittedly, I have skipped several posts due to time contraints, so I may be asking something that has already be addressed. My question, however, is this:

From my reading of Catholic dogma, original sin is contracted through procreation. This would mean that all who are born in Adam are stained with original sin. Correct? However, in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s case, God intervened to keep her preserved from the stain of original sin - at conception? at birth? after birth? I am foggy on this part. I can accept that God’s grace is sufficient to preserve her as the "Ark of God,’ but am a bit confused about how this is understood practically.

One Catholic writer implied she was kept from original sin after her birth, which I took to mean original sin was something that was “caught” after birth. My evangelical background has always held it is something we are born with.

I’m not sure who this Catholic writer is but they’re not entirely sure what they’re talking about. Catholics, as well as Protestants who believe in Original Sin, believe that Original Sin is contracted at conception:

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”[sup]289[/sup] The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”[sup]290[/sup]

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.[sup]291[/sup] Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.[sup]292[/sup]

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.[sup]293[/sup] By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[sup]294[/sup] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

…

[sup]289[/sup] Rom 5:12,19.
[sup]290[/sup] Rom 5:18.
[sup]291[/sup] Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512.
[sup]292[/sup] Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514.
[sup]293[/sup] St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
[sup]294[/sup] Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512

As for when Mary was protected . . . she was protected at conception which is why it’s called the Immaculate Conception.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Patrick Madrid has a nice article here!

 

[mangy_dog]

I have been reading through this thread in search of an answer to a question I have about original sin and the immaculate conception. Admittedly, I have skipped several posts due to time contraints, so I may be asking something that has already be addressed. My question, however, is this:

From my reading of Catholic dogma, original sin is contracted through procreation. This would mean that all who are born in Adam are stained with original sin. Correct? However, in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s case, God intervened to keep her preserved from the stain of original sin - at conception? at birth? after birth? I am foggy on this part. I can accept that God’s grace is sufficient to preserve her as the "Ark of God,’ but am a bit confused about how this is understood practically.

One Catholic writer implied she was kept from original sin after her birth, which I took to mean original sin was something that was “caught” after birth. My evangelical background has always held it is something we are born with.

Mary’s virtues are necessary because of Jesus’ virtues. Mary is pre-redeemed as a necessary requirement to be the Mother of God.

Additionally, Mary’s Fullness of Grace precludes her from any and all influence of sin. She as is her Son Jesus, is incapable of sinning. To have the Fullness of Grace is to have the continual recourse to seek God’s will - always.

This is only my mangy dog perspective. I may not be conveying all that this implies to me.

 

[PJM]

=Ohaillin;7930711]I have been reading through this thread in search of an answer to a question I have about original sin and the immaculate conception. Admittedly, I have skipped several posts due to time contraints, so I may be asking something that has already be addressed. My question, however, is this:

From my reading of Catholic dogma, original sin is contracted through procreation. This would mean that all who are born in Adam are stained with original sin. Correct? However, in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s case, God intervened to keep her preserved from the stain of original sin - at conception? at birth? after birth? I am foggy on this part. I can accept that God’s grace is sufficient to preserve her as the "Ark of God,’ but am a bit confused about how this is understood practically.

One Catholic writer implied she was kept from original sin after her birth, which I took to mean original sin was something that was “caught” after birth. My evangelical background has always held it is something we are born with.

Actually not Or at least that is a very incomplete understanding. Stated as you did, the (name removed by moderator)lication is that O.S. is passed on kinda like blue and red hair

No: Original Sin is IMPOSSED by God Himself on every soul that He God brings into existence. It is a necessary consequence of “being human”, that is able to sin [after age of reason], and is a natural consequences of Great Grandpa Adam abd Great Grandma Eve. [SO YOU ARE CORRECT that it is something ALL [BUT MARY} are born with.]

Because of ALL that God had given them, [they literally] had “perfect lives.” The ONLY [critical point] thing they lacked WAS BEING GOD! …And that is preciseky what Satan offered them. Thus the severity of their FREEWILL choice has caused a GREAT MANY evils that did not exist prior. Death, illness, the 7 capitol sins, the commnadments, hell and purgatory, worry, and working for a living and from a spiritual perspective: a “natural tendency to sin” as well as inherited through God; Original sin.

So yes in a sense O.S. is “inherited” but the REALITY is that it is a CONDITION of humanity IMPOSED BY GOD directly.

Briefly the reason God Blessed Mary with Perfection, is that God is and had to be born from “perfrection” in order to remain a Perfect God inside a perfect human body and a PERFECT SOUL just like Mary’s. It was an absolute imperitive once God decided to "become a man like us in every way but sin.’

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Ohaillin]

Thanks everyone. This is very helpful. Zach Dunn, “immaculate conception,” duh, I should have seen that. I guess I was to busy looking at the forest to see the trees. In any case, I appreciate the insight.

PJM, I have always understood Scripture to teach that sin entered the world through Adam’s disobedience and, as such, corrupted the nature of man. Furthermore, this corruption (disease) has been passed down from Adam, if you will, as part of our spiritual genetic code. But what you are saying is that God, at conception, makes each person a sinner by executive fiat. Is this correct? And, if so, is this the teaching of the Church?

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks everyone. This is very helpful. Zach Dunn, “immaculate conception,” duh, I should have seen that. I guess I was to busy looking at the forest to see the trees. In any case, I appreciate the insight.

PJM, I have always understood Scripture to teach that sin entered the world through Adam’s disobedience and, as such, corrupted the nature of man. Furthermore, this corruption (disease) has been passed down from Adam, if you will, as part of our spiritual genetic code. But what you are saying is that God, at conception, makes each person a sinner by executive fiat. Is this correct? And, if so, is this the teaching of the Church?

I would respectfully disagree with PJM’s articulation (sorry ). I wouldn’t call Original Sin something that God “imposes”. I have never heard it described that way before. Rather, Original Sin is something that has become part of human nature in light of us being all one human family descended from Adam and Eve.

Perhaps your best bet would be to look at how the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) describes Original Sin. That is a more authoritative source than any of us here. CCC 385-421 is probably the best bet. In particular, look at CCC 404-405:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. [293] By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. [294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, [295] original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

[293] St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
[294] Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512
[295] Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.

 

[zach_dunn]

Thanks everyone. This is very helpful. Zach Dunn, “immaculate conception,” duh, I should have seen that. I guess I was to busy looking at the forest to see the trees. In any case, I appreciate the insight.

PJM, I have always understood Scripture to teach that sin entered the world through Adam’s disobedience and, as such, corrupted the nature of man. Furthermore, this corruption (disease) has been passed down from Adam, if you will, as part of our spiritual genetic code. But what you are saying is that God, at conception, makes each person a sinner by executive fiat. Is this correct? And, if so, is this the teaching of the Church?

No worries, we all do that on occasion!

Also, as far as I know the Church does not teach that God imposes Original Sin on us. The Church teaches that Original Sin is a lack of “original holiness and justice” (CCC 404) that is transmitted through our parents because they themselves are in a fallen state.

If you think about it . . . God imposing sin on His children? I don’t think so.

 

[Ohaillin]

You know I have a Catachism, but I recently moved and packed it away. If I ever find the box it is in, I will be golden.

 

[Joe_5859]

You know I have a Catachism, but I recently moved and packed it away. If I ever find the box it is in, I will be golden.

Well, in the mean time, the full text is available online:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Salvatore123]

Actually, even St. Thomas Aquinas could not articulate the manner in which Mary was preserved from original sin, and yet still needed Christ as a redeemer based on the fact that she had absolutely no divinity in her - she was fully human.

Duns Scotus formulated the “best” description yet of what happened, and I believe it is accepted by most theologians today. As I mentioned above, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception must be believed under pain of heresy for denial. The manner in which it operated, however, has never been reduced to dogma.

 

[Ohaillin]

Thanks for the link. I have it bookmarked. I will take a look at Duns Scotus as well. Good stuff! :bounce: