Immaculate Conception

[SirKnight2007]

What does the term Immaculate Conception refer to? I have heard more than one explanation, and would like an apologist to respond if possible.

SirKnight2007

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The Immaculate Conception refers to the fact that Mary was conceived without sin.

See the Catechism:

491
Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

 

[steve_b]

What does the term Immaculate Conception refer to? I have heard more than one explanation, and would like an apologist to respond if possible.

SirKnight2007

It refers to Mary was born sinnless.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4540024&postcount=514

 

[Pons]

That’s the only possible meaning. Some confuse it with the virgin birth of Jesus.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I have to add, however, that though I am a well-educated Catholic, the more I try to understand what the Immaculate Conception is the less I follow the doctrine.

For example, after baptism is a baptized baby the spiritual equivalent of Immaculately Conceived Mary, or are they somehow different?

Another example: If Mary was not relieved from suffering and death – Scripture seems to indicate that she suffered and the Encyclical declaring the Immaculate Conception fairly clearly declares 5 times that she died, but that after that her body did not begin to rot – were there any real world manifestations of her immaculate condition after her birth? Non-proclivity to sin, followed by no bad behavior, would have been a real world manifestation.

But there’s an interesting sub-thought, in that. In the movie Dr. Zhivago, the antagonist says that, secretly, sinful men find comfort in one another’s failures and sins, because it makes others just like them. I think that this is a valid concepot. Christ says, “Birds have their nests; foxes have their lairs; but the Son of Man has no place to rest his head.” I think that that is the same thing.

Which makes Mary fundamentally different. Was Mary roundly disliked, as a consequence of her Immaculate Conception?

 

[Axion]

The Immaculate Conception of Mary confuses many people.

This is because it is a refinement of another doctrine, one held firmly since the earliest times in the Church - the SINLESSNESS OF MARY. It has always been taught that Mary lived a sinless life, and was freed by God’s grace from all forms of personal and original sin. This was necessary for her to bear Jesus, and also in order that he receive a pure human nature fron her, rather than a corrupted or tainted one.

What the Immaculate Conception concerns is not whether Mary was sinless. It concerns WHEN and HOW Mary was made sinless. Some believed that she was purified from Original sin jst before birth, at birth, or even much later. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that she was purified and redeemed in the most perfect way possible - at the moment of her conception. This being the most perfect and fitting way for Jesus to come into the world.

The Doctrine was pronounced infallibly in 1851, however this is misleading, since the doctrine is MUCH older, and what happened in 1851 was that the teaching was raised in status, so that it was no longer a basis for argument.

 

[Axion]

For example, after baptism is a baptized baby the spiritual equivalent of Immaculately Conceived Mary, or are they somehow different?

As I understand it, the baby HAS been subject to original sin, and retains the stain if not the actuality of that sin. Mary has not, since original sin was negated at the very moment of conception.

Another example: If Mary was not relieved from suffering and death – Scripture seems to indicate that she suffered and the Encyclical declaring the Immaculate Conception fairly clearly declares 5 times that she died, but that after that her body did not begin to rot – were there any real world manifestations of her immaculate condition after her birth? Non-proclivity to sin, followed by no bad behavior, would have been a real world manifestation.

It is fairly standard teaching across all the ancient Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic etc. ) that Mary committed no actual sin in her lifetime.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Immaculate Conception of Mary confuses many people.

This is because it is a refinement of another doctrine, one held firmly since the earliest times in the Church - the SINLESSNESS OF MARY. It has always been taught that Mary lived a sinless life, and was freed by God’s grace from all forms of personal and original sin. This was necessary for her to bear Jesus, and also in order that he receive a pure human nature fron her, rather than a corrupted or tainted one.

What the Immaculate Conception concerns is not whether Mary was sinless. It concerns WHEN and HOW Mary was made sinless. Some believed that she was purified from Original sin jst before birth, at birth, or even much later. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that she was purified and redeemed in the most perfect way possible - at the moment of her conception. This being the most perfect and fitting way for Jesus to come into the world.

The Doctrine was pronounced infallibly in 1851, however this is misleading, since the doctrine is MUCH older, and what happened in 1851 was that the teaching was raised in status, so that it was no longer a basis for argument.

I know this. And thank you. Your explication gives comfort, no joke. But, the value of the explication fades as it approaches the mystical.

Respecting the non-mystical, this idea occurred to me: Original sin – the profound proclivity of human flesh to sin and its consequential profound unworthiness of friendship with God, without more, afflicts every cell – including the ovum from Mary’s reproductive tract from which Jesus was ultimately conceived at the time of the Annunciation… Purifying that one cell from the stain of Original Sin would have been the most important role of the Immaculate Conception, since the perfection of God would have been directly joined to that one cell – the actual locus of the hypostatic union.

 

[Mothers_Boy]

As I understand it, the baby HAS been subject to original sin, and retains the stain if not the actuality of that sin. Mary has not, since original sin was negated at the very moment of conception.

It is my understanding that Baptism washes away the stain of original sin. We go into the waters and are “Born Again” and come out a new creation in Christ. What Original sin leaves us with is a propensity toward sin, concupiscence is what it is called.

 

[Mothers_Boy]

As I understand it, the baby HAS been subject to original sin, and retains the stain if not the actuality of that sin. Mary has not, since original sin was negated at the very moment of conception.

The baby doesn’t retain the stain or the actuality of Original Sin, if i am understanding what you are trying to say. We are “Born Again” in the waters of Baptism and become a new creation in Christ. What Original sin leaves us with is a propensity toward sin, concupiscence.

 

[Matariel]

I have to add, however, that though I am a well-educated Catholic, the more I try to understand what the Immaculate Conception is the less I follow the doctrine.

That’s not good…

For example, after baptism is a baptized baby the spiritual equivalent of Immaculately Conceived Mary, or are they somehow different?

No, they’re different. Blessed Mary did not have concupiscence, but baptized babies do have concupiscence.

Another example: If Mary was not relieved from suffering and death – Scripture seems to indicate that she suffered and the Encyclical declaring the Immaculate Conception fairly clearly declares 5 times that she died, but that after that her body did not begin to rot – were there any real world manifestations of her immaculate condition after her birth? Non-proclivity to sin, followed by no bad behavior, would have been a real world manifestation.

Huh? Just as Christ died, yet his body was preserved decay, He preserved His mother also.

Which makes Mary fundamentally different. Was Mary roundly disliked, as a consequence of her Immaculate Conception?

She suffered as she watched her Son’s Passion. I’m sure the Pharisees, Saducees, and the Roman soldiers treated her horribly because she was Christ’s mother. I doubt she had an easy life.

 

[budgie2]

Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without Original Sin but personally don’t know why she’s so greater than us as Original Sin is removed in baptism. It is said that Mary cannot sin because she was conceived immaculately, but if Mary could not sin then she did not have free will. Mary as New Eve could have recommitted Original Sin if she had free will, and if she did not have free will then she was not fully human. I do not believe in concupiscence but I believe it’s possible Mary had minor venials sins on her conscience and was not entirely spotless. In any case it is up to Christ to judge Mary as he will judge all the living and the dead. Christ himself may have been judged by God the Father and it is still possible he could have committed small divine/human sins. We cannot judge Christ as we do not have authority and he will be our judge (my opinion).

 

[1ke]

Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without Original Sin but personally don’t know why she’s so greater than us as Original Sin is removed in baptism.

Baptism does not remove the consequences of Original Sin whereas Mary was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin.

It is said that Mary cannot sin because she was conceived immaculately,

I’m not sure who you think says this, because it is not the Catholic Church.

The Church teaches Mary *did not *sin, not that she *could not *sin.

but if Mary could not sin then she did not have free will.

Which is why the Church does not teach this. Mary had free will.

I do not believe in concupiscence but I believe it’s possible Mary had minor venials sins on her conscience and was not entirely spotless.

That is not what the Church teaches. Your opinion is wrong.

In any case it is up to Christ to judge Mary as he will judge all the living and the dead. Christ himself may have been judged by God the Father and it is still possible he could have committed small divine/human sins. We cannot judge Christ as we do not have authority and he will be our judge (my opinion).

Your opinion is wrong, as attested to by both Scripture (Christ was like us in all things excet sin) and the Church. Jesus is God. God cannot sin.

 

[steve_b]

Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without Original Sin but personally don’t know why she’s so greater than us as Original Sin is removed in baptism.

I can think of ONE huge reason.

bud:

It is said that Mary cannot sin because she was conceived immaculately,

That’s NOT what the doctrine says.

bud:

but if Mary could not sin then she did not have free will.

This is why you need to learn what the doctrine says, then you won’t speculate on such things.

bud:

Mary as New Eve could have recommitted Original Sin if she had free will, and if she did not have free will then she was not fully human.

Stop with all this speculation. Learn the doctrine.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

bud:

I do not believe in concupiscence but I believe it’s possible Mary had minor venials sins on her conscience and was not entirely spotless. In any case it is up to Christ to judge Mary as he will judge all the living and the dead. Christ himself may have been judged by God the Father and it is still possible he could have committed small divine/human sins. We cannot judge Christ as we do not have authority and he will be our judge (my opinion).

:doh2: good grief!!!

 

[Matariel]

Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived without Original Sin but personally don’t know why she’s so greater than us as Original Sin is removed in baptism. It is said that Mary cannot sin because she was conceived immaculately, but if Mary could not sin then she did not have free will. Mary as New Eve could have recommitted Original Sin if she had free will, and if she did not have free will then she was not fully human. I do not believe in concupiscence but I believe it’s possible Mary had minor venials sins on her conscience and was not entirely spotless. In any case it is up to Christ to judge Mary as he will judge all the living and the dead. Christ himself may have been judged by God the Father and it is still possible he could have committed small divine/human sins. We cannot judge Christ as we do not have authority and he will be our judge (my opinion).

You do know this is heresy, don’t you?

 

[Duc_in_Altum]

I have to add, however, that though I am a well-educated Catholic, the more I try to understand what the Immaculate Conception is the less I follow the doctrine…

Hi, I know exactly what you mean. I had been studying the documents of the Catholic Church and the Catechism on the subject and didn’t get it either. I reached the point where I belived this dogma because the Church told me so. But a couple of weeks ago while I was praying the Rosary everything fell in place. While meditating on the Sorrowful Misteries I suddenly realized that Mary was conceived without sin because Jesus was going to assume human flesh in His incarnation, therefore the flesh he was going to assume had to be sinless, pure, immaculate. Guess who’s flesh Jesus took? Mary’s!!! And also remember, from the Old Testament, the Paschal Lamb had to be spotless and without blemish.As St. Augsutine said "Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” I hope this helps a bit.

God bless

 

[PJM]

What does the term Immaculate Conception refer to? ISirKnight2007

*** Defending the Faith: on Mary’s Virginity & Immaculate Conception***

Revelation 12:2 says the woman, the Ark of the Covenant (Mary) “was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery”. I realize this can be understood in an eschatological way as being about the pains of penance and tribulation that the Church experiences as God brings about His eternal reign in us. All the same, doesn’t it also have a literal meaning?

I have heard it said that the Church teaches that, because she was free from original sin, and therefore free from the curse of Genesis 3:16 “in pain you shall bring forth children”, therefore Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. I’ve never actually seen this defined as dogmatic teaching, however.

To believe in Mary’s perpetual moral and sexual virginity seems to me to be good and rational faith.To believe (as some say we must) that her hymen was physically intact after Our Lord passed through it, as though the normal physical process of delivery didn’t happen, seems like an impossible belief (aside from being entirely unnecessary and imprudent intrusion into the modesty of the Mother of God), and almost makes her and her Son seem to me to be less human, as though her pregnancy and birth were less than a normal human one.

Wow! that’s some deep thinking.

Where to start? Let’s began with understanding that we are speaking of God and the very Mother of God. The same God that Created the entire Universe out of nothing and keeps it in existence today. The same God, in whose image (Gen. chapter 1) we are created, with Godly attributes of mind, reason, intellect, memory and freewill, not to mention our souls which animate and give us life, all of which are SPIRITUAL, not physical. And NOT one single human being is identical in every way to another human being.

I mention this to allow at least a slight understanding of the Power of our all good, and all perfect God. Nothing, not a single good thing is impossible for God.

Jesus REALLY and TRULY (the entire Jesus) in the Sacrament of Catholic Holy Communion for example. It is the GREATEST POSSIBLE GOOD!

Mary “Ever Virgin” gave birth without pain, by the same power and for the same basic reason as to why she is “Ever Virgin.” Namely, Mary FREELY consented to be “The Mother of God” and all that it entailed.

When Mary and Joseph presented Jesus in the Temple at 40 days, the priest who was promised by Yahweh God that he would see the Redeemer before he died, thanked God as soon as he saw Jesus, and told her:

“He will be a corner stone, and a stumbling stone for many, and a sword of sorrow will also pierce you’re heart.” [Lk. 2:30-40] Mary instantly replied: " I am the handmaiden of the Lord do with me as you will."And when the stone was rolled into place at our Lords tomb, a sword of sorrow pierced Mary’s heart.

Mary is PERFECT, made PERFECT, and kept PERFECT because GOD who too is PERFECT could, and would not accept anything less. I suggest you read Exodus Chapter 25 on what God DEMANDED from Moses for his “Ark of the Covenant.” a mere sign of the presence of the reality of the “SPIRIT of God.” PUREST GOLD was mandated!

Could that same God settle for less for the New Ark of HIS Covenant; the Mother of His Son? Not a sign or symbol but really God? Of course Not! Mary had to be made and kept perfect not for her benefit, but because of her STATURE and POSITION as MOTHER OF GOD! Nothing less would be acceptable for God! It had to be this way!

From all women throughout history, Mary alone was selected to become the Mother of God. This ** willing ** obedience, this humble “yes Lord” ** had to be rewarded. Perpetual Virginity and painfree childbirth, were little enough payment ** for saying, “yes Lord” what ever you want! "Do with me as you will!"

Am I being incredulous here? Please help me understand what the Church actually teaches regarding the birth of our Lord.

No you are just being purely human! But friend is that all that God expects from us?

Isaiah 55: 6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 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. 8 ** For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. **

1 Tim.4: 9 “The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. 10 For to this end we toil and strive, * because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”

Please take the time to read Exodus Chapter 25: I think it might help you better understand God’s expectations for us and how we relate to Him!

The reason Luke and Rev. are different are that Luke is a “historical accounting of what took place.”

Rev. was written by John in a time of severe persecution of the Church by Rome and Jews, so it is just a “Moral Story” with coded messages that would be understood by the underground Church by not by the persecutors.
Love and prayer’s

Pat

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Huh? Just as Christ died, yet his body was preserved decay, He preserved His mother also.

I’m not trying to be contentious, by asking this, but are you sure that Christ’s body was preserved from decay? Mary was preserved from decay to keep her body perfect. What’s the point, in Jesus’ case? The skin was largely ripped off his body by the scourging. Note that the scourging damage was apparently repaired when He appeared to the Apostles after His resurrection. I think that you may be wrong, in Jesus’ case.

 

[budgie2]

I’m not trying to be contentious, by asking this, but are you sure that Christ’s body was preserved from decay? Mary was preserved from decay to keep her body perfect. What’s the point, in Jesus’ case? The skin was largely ripped off his body by the scourging. Note that the scourging damage was apparently repaired when He appeared to the Apostles after His resurrection. I think that you may be wrong, in Jesus’ case.

Christ’s body as resurrected is fully alive although he showed his scars to his apostles and Thomas put his hand in the scar in Christ’s hand. As Christ is fully alive therefore his body is immortal and will not have aged past the year that he died. We believe Christ’s body is in heaven.

 

[budgie2]

Hi, I know exactly what you mean. I had been studying the documents of the Catholic Church and the Catechism on the subject and didn’t get it either. I reached the point where I belived this dogma because the Church told me so. But a couple of weeks ago while I was praying the Rosary everything fell in place. While meditating on the Sorrowful Misteries I suddenly realized that Mary was conceived without sin because Jesus was going to assume human flesh in His incarnation, therefore the flesh he was going to assume had to be sinless, pure, immaculate. Guess who’s flesh Jesus took? Mary’s!!! And also remember, from the Old Testament, the Paschal Lamb had to be spotless and without blemish.As St. Augsutine said "Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” I hope this helps a bit.

God bless

I hope you have had divine revelation on this issue. I personally cannot accept the Immaculate Conception although your explanation seems plausible. The thing that concerns me is that Mary was not saved in the same way as everybody else ie. through baptism but by virtue of her conception. I will look for an argument against you as your explanation is good.