immaculate conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Agent

Guest
I have a question about the Immaculate Conception.

If Mary had to be without Original Sin in order to be the mother of Jesus, what about the mother of Mary? Wouldn’t she have to be without original sin as well? And on and on . . . .

Thanks!
 
No, because Mary’s mother wasn’t the Mother of God, only Mary was. There was no need for Mary’s parents or grandparents to be so.
 
im sure there is someone who can answer this better that i can.

But Our Lady’s mother, Anna, was concieved with original sin, otherwise she would have been The Immaculate Conception as well. Both of Our Lady’s parents were very pious and holy Saints, naturally, but they were also born with original sin.
Hope thid helps

Seán
 
No because Mary’s Immaculate Conception was a singular act of grace given her because she was to be the Mother of God. God has sometimes graced individuals before birth to prepare them for a special purpose, such as Samuel and John the Baptist. Mary’s case was more special than these since she was the only person given this particular grace. Jesus’ conception was the most special since his Father is God and Mary is his mother.
 
*"…singular act of grace given her…" *

Eve and Adam - our first parents, were also given this grace.
 
Agent said:
I have a question about the Immaculate Conception.

If Mary had to be without Original Sin in order to be the mother of Jesus, what about the mother of Mary? Wouldn’t she have to be without original sin as well? And on and on . . . .

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Jesus could have been born of the worst sinner imaginable. However, it was fitting that he be born of an immaculate person… not required, just fitting.
 
If Evan is correct, what need is there for Immaculate Conception? It is certainly a bone of contention with non-Catholic Christians. . .
 
In order to know the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, we must understand the concept of conception.

The teaching of the the Immaculate Conception is talking about when conception truly takes places. It is not looking at the physical conception (when the egg is fertalized and implanted in the womb). Conception in the teaching is talking about when the soul is united with the body.

God preserved her soul in view of her mission. Since her body was procreated by her mother and father (physical conception), Mary was susceptibleto original sin. In order to prevent original sin taking effect, God preserved her soul and sanctifying grace was given to her once her soul infused with her body.

To read more about this teaching
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
 
Evan said:
Jesus could have been born of the worst sinner imaginable.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. It would oppose God’s holiness, n’est pas?
However, it was fitting that he be born of an immaculate person… not required, just fitting.
Click to expand...
I’ve never personally agreed with the “fitting” argument - fortunately, that’s not part of the dogma. Many Fathers viewed Mary’s utter purity as necessary for the sake of being the Tabernacle of our Lord. If one were to look simply at the OT types, one would see the necessity of the purity of this vessel.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
vwtaylorii said:
In order to know the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, we must understand the concept of conception.

The teaching of the the Immaculate Conception is talking about when conception truly takes places. It is not looking at the physical conception (when the egg is fertalized and implanted in the womb). Conception in the teaching is talking about when the soul is united with the body.

God preserved her soul in view of her mission. Since her body was procreated by her mother and father (physical conception), Mary was susceptibleto original sin. In order to prevent original sin taking effect, God preserved her soul and sanctifying grace was given to her once her soul infused with her body.

To read more about this teaching
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Click to expand...
👍
 
mardukm said:
I doubt it. It would oppose God’s holiness, n’est pas?

I’ve never personally agreed with the “fitting” argument - fortunately, that’s not part of the dogma. Many Fathers viewed Mary’s utter purity as necessary for the sake of being the Tabernacle of our Lord. If one were to look simply at the OT types, one would see the necessity of the purity of this vessel.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
God’s holiness in intrinsic in His very existence. God is present in all creation, hell as well as heaven. Read the psalm 139:
Code: 
Where can I hide from your spirit? From your presence, where can I flee?
If I ascend to the heavens, you are there; if I lie down in Sheol, you are there too.
If I fly with the wings of dawn and alight beyond the sea,
Even there your hand will guide me, your right hand hold me fast.
If I say, "Surely darkness shall hide me, and night shall be my light" --
Darkness is not dark for you, and night shines as the day. Darkness and light are but one.
You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb.
I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works! My very self you knew;
If God decided it would be better to have been born of a sinner, that, he would have done. For His decisions are perfect. There was no better choice than to be born of a sinless mother.
 
Agent said:
If Evan is correct, what need is there for Immaculate Conception? It is certainly a bone of contention with non-Catholic Christians. . .
Click to expand...
There is a need for the Immaculate Conception for three reasons


  1. *]In Genesis 3: 15, God said He would put emnity between Satan and the woman, and her offspring and his offspring. God said He would not let Satan get to the woman and the offspring. All Christians agree that the offspring that is mention is Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is the offspring, then Mary has to be the woman. If Mary was not immaculate conceived, she would have gotten original sin and Gen 3: 15 would not have been fulfilled.

    *]In Romans 5, St. Paul showed Jesus being the new Adam. As one brought death to the world through disobedience (Adam), the other brought life through obedience (Jesus). If jesus is the new Adam, there has to be a new Eve (Mary). Sin enter the world via a Eve (a woman that was a virgin and undefiled) saying yes to the serpant (fallen angel) to eat the fruit that God said not to. Salvation enter the world via Mary saying yes to an angel (Gabrial) to be the mother of Jesus Christ. If sin came through a woman that was a virgin and without blemish, there has to be a woman that was also a virgin and undefiled to bring salvation into the world

    *]In Exodus 25, God instructed to build the ark of the Old Covenant with pure gold. Hebrew 9 says within the ark were the Commandments from God to Moses (tablet of the covenant; Word of God), manna that was given to the people of Israel when they were traveling 40 years in the desert after being freed from the bondage in Egypt (bread of life), and the staff of Aaron (the High Priest staff). The ark was used to transport these holy objects from one place to another. These objects prefigured Jesus because He is the incarnated Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest of the New Covenant. If the those holy objects in the Old Covenant were being transported to another place in an ark made of pure gold, Jesus must be brought into the world through a woman made of pure flesh. That is why we call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant.
 
vwtaylorii said:
There is a need for the Immaculate Conception for three reasons


  1. *]In Genesis 3: 15, God said He would put emnity between Satan and the woman, and her offspring and his offspring. God said He would not let Satan get to the woman and the offspring. All Christians agree that the offspring that is mention is Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is the offspring, then Mary has to be the woman. If Mary was not immaculate conceived, she would have gotten original sin and Gen 3: 15 would not have been fulfilled.

    *]In Romans 5, St. Paul showed Jesus being the new Adam. As one brought death to the world through disobedience (Adam), the other brought life through obedience (Jesus). If jesus is the new Adam, there has to be a new Eve (Mary). Sin enter the world via a Eve (a woman that was a virgin and undefiled) saying yes to the serpant (fallen angel) to eat the fruit that God said not to. Salvation enter the world via Mary saying yes to an angel (Gabrial) to be the mother of Jesus Christ. If sin came through a woman that was a virgin and without blemish, there has to be a woman that was also a virgin and undefiled to bring salvation into the world

    *]In Exodus 25, God instructed to build the ark of the Old Covenant with pure gold. Hebrew 9 says within the ark were the Commandments from God to Moses (tablet of the covenant; Word of God), manna that was given to the people of Israel when they were traveling 40 years in the desert after being freed from the bondage in Egypt (bread of life), and the staff of Aaron (the High Priest staff). The ark was used to transport these holy objects from one place to another. These objects prefigured Jesus because He is the incarnated Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest of the New Covenant. If the those holy objects in the Old Covenant were being transported to another place in an ark made of pure gold, Jesus must be brought into the world through a woman made of pure flesh. That is why we call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...

  1. You seem to have a circular argument here. Since there was an IC, then we read back into these biblical statements support for the IC.

    If there were no IC, then we would need to interpret these versus in a different way or these versus would not even be there. God’s hand is not forced by prophecy; God is the author of prophecy. Prophecy reveals what God has done and what God will do. If God had chosen to be born of a sinner, there would be no prophecy concerning the IC.

    The argument here is, God did not NEED to be born of an sinless mother. God chose this as the best action for this world in that it gives us a perfect model for our lives.

    Until we reach an understanding of the topic of discussion we will continue to talk past each other. I understand the need for the IC based on the revelation of God. Some of your arguments are very good considering what God has done. But I was speaking of what was needed for salvation. And I believe God could have saved us via a perfect sacrifice without an IC’d mother.
 
The Catholic Church does not teach that it was **necessary ** for Mary to be immaculately conceived…but that it was fitting…
 
Evan said:
You seem to have a circular argument here. Since there was an IC, then we read back into these biblical statements support for the IC.

If there were no IC, then we would need to interpret these versus in a different way or these versus would not even be there. God’s hand is not forced by prophecy; God is the author of prophecy. Prophecy reveals what God has done and what God will do. If God had chosen to be born of a sinner, there would be no prophecy concerning the IC.

The argument here is, God did not NEED to be born of an sinless mother. God chose this as the best action for this world in that it gives us a perfect model for our lives.

Until we reach an understanding of the topic of discussion we will continue to talk past each other. I understand the need for the IC based on the revelation of God. Some of your arguments are very good considering what God has done. But I was speaking of what was needed for salvation. And I believe God could have saved us via a perfect sacrifice without an IC’d mother.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you need to be so hard on vwtaylorii. Reminding us all of the biblical witness to the IC harms no one, surely.

As to your point, of course God could have used any method of his choosing to save mankind. The fact that he didn’t is significant, not immaterial. Mary is the Second Eve, not just the Mother of Jesus. That means she is the mother of all believers. And as such God wished that the Second Eve be pure in every way. God is recreating the human race with Mary, not just setting up the redemption as a solitary act (not that you are trying to make that point, but some would).

Also, consider what Satan would have tried to make of Jesus’ mother’s impurity. Considering the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary, it was God’s plan from the beginning to make Jesus’ mother pure and stainless. It wasn’t “fitting” in the narrowest sense of the word, but in the fullest sense possible.
 
Chesster said:
No, because Mary’s mother wasn’t the Mother of God, only Mary was. There was no need for Mary’s parents or grandparents to be so.
Click to expand...
Certainly Jesus could have been preserved from original sin through a miraculous conception that would have kept him from contracting (if that’s the right word) original sin from Mary in the same way Mary allegedly was prevented from contracting original sin from her mother. But if God can do that for Mary, He most certainly could have done the same for Jesus. So if you’re going to argue that God had to keep Mary sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless, then the original objector is spot on to argue that God–by that logic–would have had to keep Mary’s mother free from original sin as well.
 
from the Catechism (490):

In order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace…

When we are born in sin we are not free…It was fitting that Mary be totally free (like Eve before the fall) to say yes or no to God–she was not bound by a sinful nature in any way…so her will was totally free…this was a wonderful gift of God–not just to Mary but to the human race through Mary…

Because Catholics believe that Mary was not manipulated in any way by God to say yes or no (she was given complete freedom), one can see why we honor her in such a high degree–her “yes” brought us Christ…
 
Evan said:
Jesus could have been born of the worst sinner imaginable. However, it was fitting that he be born of an immaculate person… not required, just fitting.
Click to expand...
Fitting according to whom? And just because an idea may be fitting, does that mean it actually happened?
 
Miguel_Sastre said:
Certainly Jesus could have been preserved from original sin through a miraculous conception that would have kept him from contracting (if that’s the right word) original sin from Mary in the same way Mary allegedly was prevented from contracting original sin from her mother. But if God can do that for Mary, He most certainly could have done the same for Jesus. So if you’re going to argue that God had to keep Mary sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless, then the original objector is spot on to argue that God–by that logic–would have had to keep Mary’s mother free from original sin as well.
Click to expand...
This is not the rationale behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top