- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes and no. We cannot personally sin until we know right from wrong.No, we are not judged for Adam ane Eve’s personal sin either, but we do bear the consequence of their choice, which is orginal sin. We are separated from God at conception, and inheritors of the death sentence.
B
byoby
Guest
I can follow you up to this point.
So Mary did not bear the consequences?
You loose me here. What exactly has a newly conceived child done to merit the death sentence or seperation from God if the newley conceived could not have yet sinned? Is this death sentence you speak of physical, spiritual (Eternal seperation from God-Hell), or both.
D
Delphinus85
Guest
The immaculate conception refers to Mary being conceived (through normal carnal means) but preserved from the stain of original sin.
G
guanophore
Guest
According to the Church Teaching, she was saved in advance, for the purpose of her special role. Before she was in the womb, He knew her.
The newly conceived child did not “do” anything. That is why it is not considered personal sin. As a consequence of Adam’s sin, humans are all conceived in a fallen state. Probably someone else could explain it better than I.
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201frs.asp
N
Nita
Guest
The stain of original sin consists in the absence of sanctifying grace (supernatural life of God) in the soul - a deprivation resulting from Adam’s sin. (cf Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22)
Our soul is “spiritually” dead; there is no eternal life of God present in it.
By a special intervention, God infused the life of sanctifying grace into Mary’s soul from the very first moment of her conception. This is what is meant by the Immaculate Conception, what is meant by the teaching that Mary was conceived free from the stain of original sin.
Nita
C
chrisb
Guest
We have to consider the question whether, from the first moment of her existence, the Mother of God obtained a preparation of grace and purity commensurate with her most sublime office and her maternal dignity… we then must therefore first consider the laws and principles which may be supposed to the subject. And the first which presents itself is this very principle of preparation.
The Old Testament, in all that it embraces, is but one great example of this principle. Its history and genealogies, its rites and sacrifices, its miracles and provicdences, its prophets and other great personages, all are shaped out and directed by God towards the one great mystery of the incarnation of His divine son. And as is the whole, so is each particular part. Preparation is one of the grand laws of the divine economy, and one which is everywhere apparent. And as we approach nearer to the end contemplated, so do we find the preparations more perfect, and higher grades of holiness in the instruments which God designs to employ in their accomplishment. The general law is that of a gradual advance of preparation, yet evil may still remain, and may be allowed to encompass and assault what is holy, or even to afflict and crucify it, and thus to be a means of purification or probation; but notwithstanding the presence of evil, it is not suffered to e the source from which aught that is holy springs.
Great personages are raised up by God to, prepare the way for His Son. Some begin a new epoch, and advance the order of things towards the Incarnation. Some are of our Lord’s ancestry, and are specially chosen, specially sanctified, and the descent to Him limited within their line. Some are prophets, organs of the eternal Word, who partake beforehand in the knowledge of the Word made flesh. All are remarkable figures of Christ. And what we have now to observe, is the striking way in which God prepares them for their sacred offices. For in many cases this preparation is minutely recorded, thought in others it is but insinuated in the divine history. We have sufficient examples given to show us that preparation is a principle of the divine economy and, as it were, a law with God. We can also see that such a preparation bears relation to the office for which each person is designed and that the nearer that office stands in relation to the Incarnation, the higher and more suernatural is the preparation which precedes it.
The Old Testament, in all that it embraces, is but one great example of this principle. Its history and genealogies, its rites and sacrifices, its miracles and provicdences, its prophets and other great personages, all are shaped out and directed by God towards the one great mystery of the incarnation of His divine son. And as is the whole, so is each particular part. Preparation is one of the grand laws of the divine economy, and one which is everywhere apparent. And as we approach nearer to the end contemplated, so do we find the preparations more perfect, and higher grades of holiness in the instruments which God designs to employ in their accomplishment. The general law is that of a gradual advance of preparation, yet evil may still remain, and may be allowed to encompass and assault what is holy, or even to afflict and crucify it, and thus to be a means of purification or probation; but notwithstanding the presence of evil, it is not suffered to e the source from which aught that is holy springs.
Great personages are raised up by God to, prepare the way for His Son. Some begin a new epoch, and advance the order of things towards the Incarnation. Some are of our Lord’s ancestry, and are specially chosen, specially sanctified, and the descent to Him limited within their line. Some are prophets, organs of the eternal Word, who partake beforehand in the knowledge of the Word made flesh. All are remarkable figures of Christ. And what we have now to observe, is the striking way in which God prepares them for their sacred offices. For in many cases this preparation is minutely recorded, thought in others it is but insinuated in the divine history. We have sufficient examples given to show us that preparation is a principle of the divine economy and, as it were, a law with God. We can also see that such a preparation bears relation to the office for which each person is designed and that the nearer that office stands in relation to the Incarnation, the higher and more suernatural is the preparation which precedes it.
D
dhero
Guest
It is said in the earlier text here refering to the definition of Immaculate Conception that Mary was without sin or sinless. Hebrews 4:15 and 9:28 clearly makes a point to specify that Christ was without sin. Why wouldnt the bible make that same point about Mary ?. I am trying to make the decision to be catholic and I have gone through many understandings of existing doctrine and come to accept the reasoning behind some of them. This one was discovered this weekend , and Im afraid I have shaken a few catholics that did not read this definition. The room was very silent, and I feel bad. I would like to be able to respond to them with what was meant by Mary being without sin, not refering to original sin. Is this the same as Christ being without sin ?. As I have not studied all of the church doctrine, and I dont believe there are different levels of being “without sin”, perhaps making a list of people that the church believes are without sin would be a starting point, unless im way off base here. Any direction, “correction”, or advice would be greatly appreciated.
D
davidv
Guest
Adam and Eve, as well as Mary, the mother of Jesus, were without original sin. Adam and Eve were created that way. Mary was conceived that way. The reason that Mary was conceived that way was 1) because it was fitting to her role as Mother of God and 2) the merits of Christ’s sacrifice were applied during her conception.
D
dhero
Guest
Thank you , I understand the part concerning original sin, and forgive me I dont mean to challenge the doctrine , I mean to understand it and get different viewpoints . My question was more directed to the part which states she was without sin , or sinless throughout her life. It helps me to find biblical evidence on issues for clarification if possible. I can understand the vessel needed to be special for Jesus, the Holy Ghost came over her and obviously did work we cannot understand. The bible is clear she was a virgin , blessed among all women and that she found favor with God according to the angel or full of grace. Im assuming ,since the writers made it clear that Christ was without sin , that they would say the same of Mary if that was important. Obviously finding favor with God is very signifigant and to do that you would have to obey Gods commandments keeping you from sin, She herself declares she is a servant of God, ive also read in some translations full of grace which seems to indicate to me something more then just favor. I just think of being without sin to be a trait of Jesus alone since it is specifically declared, and that no other , according to the text of the bible , is declared without sin in the same manner thus noone being equal to Jesus in this trait. I guess I should ask how is “without sin” for Jesus, as described in the bible, different or the same as the Catholic Churches doctrine of Mary “without sin”?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
I like to get my article linked in every Immaculate Conception thread 
The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
Everything you ever wanted to know. Based on Juniper Carol, Archbishop Ullathorne, Ludwig Ott, and others. All the main passages from the Fathers (for and against).
Phil P
The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
Everything you ever wanted to know. Based on Juniper Carol, Archbishop Ullathorne, Ludwig Ott, and others. All the main passages from the Fathers (for and against).
Phil P
D
dhero
Guest
“Hail Mary Full of Grace”, that was simple , becuase of the grace of God this was possible, I can understand that and it is not the same as Christ in that context as I see it. Your article makes a lot of sense on that subject. There is a previous link up the chain that did a good job explaining humanity in the context of without sin. I can put that issue to rest with gladness and understand Gods gift to her. However one issue remains that really isnt huge but seemingly contradicts the bible unless its another translation issue. So the question is “does the doctrine contradict the bible ?”.On the subject of perpetually virginity, I looked at several translations of Mathew 1:25 and the definition of the word “until”. Its pretty clear to me that the action based on the word until happened otherwise a different word would be used. I didnt see any other translations that differed from that and the article does not address this passage. It appears from the bible she enjoyed the holy union with her husband after the birth of Christ, or " until she gave birth". Does the Church disagree with the bible on this ?
F
FCEGM
Guest
No, the Church understands the bible on this.
You may find this articles helpful:catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html
catholic-legate.com/articles/jesusbros.html
Also, do a search for this oft-discussed topic here at CAF.
D
dhero
Guest
The arguments for there not to be any other children of mary seems very good ,However I didnt not see any mention of Pauls writing in 1Galations 1:19. "The Lord’s Brother, Im assuming the same translation would be applied , and the word brother doesnt mean brother. The ever virgin argument is not convincing , Jewish custom sites Gods commandment to multiply. I didnt find evidence searching for jewish customs of chastity in marriage, only catholic information on that subject. the brothers argument seems to be the bases for this claim, however many for physical reasons cant have children so this only speaks to the bearing of children .In Genisis the first words concerning marriage ‘and the two shall become one flesh’ describe the essence of marriage. The discussion in the bible speaks to being married vrs not being married and the translations of virgin vrs. daughter and husband vrs father are huge discrepencies and change the entire meaning. To this day a father gives his daughter in marriage and the text makes more sense based on previous evidence in the bible and Pauls teaching on marriage. So there doesn’t appear to be any real convincing evidence of this other then the translation of the word ‘brethen’ and the word ‘until’.
And the declaration of one man saying we dont tolerate any questions of the ever virgin. She may not have had any other children and they may not have been with each other. We dont know what happened to Joseph. So I can only say that is possible since the writers once again felt it not important to specify this as they have with Christs traits. The article tells of Joseph being and old man and having children, then the next says he was a virgin, a whole lot of speculation and theory going on and no specific references other then writings of papal authority. So its pretty clear that there is much confusion on this issue as I see it. So I will leave it that , I believe its possible she was ever virgin. Only God knows the truth. Im getting the feeling that I HAVE TO believe certain things to be catholic rather then just understand the reasoning behind it. My fear is should i continue this catholic journey I will spend more time defending doctrine then spreading the words of Christ as is evident in some of this forum, but i press on. Thanks for responding , this really has been helpful
And the declaration of one man saying we dont tolerate any questions of the ever virgin. She may not have had any other children and they may not have been with each other. We dont know what happened to Joseph. So I can only say that is possible since the writers once again felt it not important to specify this as they have with Christs traits. The article tells of Joseph being and old man and having children, then the next says he was a virgin, a whole lot of speculation and theory going on and no specific references other then writings of papal authority. So its pretty clear that there is much confusion on this issue as I see it. So I will leave it that , I believe its possible she was ever virgin. Only God knows the truth. Im getting the feeling that I HAVE TO believe certain things to be catholic rather then just understand the reasoning behind it. My fear is should i continue this catholic journey I will spend more time defending doctrine then spreading the words of Christ as is evident in some of this forum, but i press on. Thanks for responding , this really has been helpful
F
FCEGM
Guest
dh, I think you are approaching the topic in a very open manner; I congratulate you for that and think it will bear good fruit for you. This article (which I think is very insightful) addresses the issue in a way that I think you might find helpful in your “pressing on”
:bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm
D
dhero
Guest
Thanks that was a good article on understanding why the church has this doctrine. It seems each time I read an article it brings up additonal questions, which should probably be posted in another thread. It appears the church may have had some trouble with the divinity of Christ at some time and therefore has this doctrine to say that he can be God becuase Mary was totally and completely pure,ever a virgin and never once sinned throughout her life through the grace of God. So I can understand the meaning behind why the church would have this doctrine, I can even explain it to others. But becuase it removes the unique quality of being without sin from Jesus, meaning there is one other human being in the recorded biblical history that had his same quality or trait, it challenges the thoughts and aspiration of one to be without sin like Jesus. Jesus was tempted by the dragon himself and proved himself worthy, this gives us hope in our temptation that if he can do it we too can overcome. He is the example of how to live your life free of sin and how to deal with problems and issue and how to treat our fellow man and how to worship God. It certainly makes that one trait specified in the prophecy of his coming of less magnitude when another has it. If it was important to the text the prophecy of his coming would include , of the virgin who is also without sin. They said it of Jesus , why not say the same about his blessed Mother and say , look you silly humans there are two without sin and you still cant get it right. I think if it were something to focus our attention on it would have been clearly mentioned. This does not mean that it is not impossible , just that it wasnt important to mention. The article brings additional questions and concerns. But in an attempt to end this thread on this subject since I can now understand the ideals behind it. According to the document, which im not sure it official or opinion, if I do not believe fully the entirety of the Immaculate Conception dogma then I would not be a catholic or in other words if I do not believe this came from God through the church then I would not or should not be Catholic?
F
FCEGM
Guest
Actually not. The Marian doctrines illustrate what God’s grace offered to us in and through Christ can do for us - the extent of holiness to which we are called AND to which He offers the grace to accomplish it. IOW, this is what Christ has already done for Mary and while she is unique, so also are we each also unique and are called to a holiness far above what our minds can imagine. He offers her to us both as an example of what His grace can do and as our Mother who urges us on to do what He says.
What I have found, though, is that too many are uncomfortable with the thought that anyone - including and especially Christ’s own mother - can in any way arrive at a holiness greater than one’s own. If it is just “Christ and me”, why, then, I will by His grace be as great as Christ and no one can be greater in Christ that I!
I’d like to recommend to you The World’s First Love, by the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen:
ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=735&AFID=12&
Let me answer you from this angle: Believing with Catholic Faith is a gift from God received in its entirety. One may, however, have a difficulty understanding how and why a particular doctrine is to be believed; the mind struggles to “catch up to” that to which faith assents.
I think you will find that assenting to the Catholic Faith (i.e., receiving the gift as a whole and not searching after it piecemeal) gives one the humility to understand one’s limitations in fully understanding a doctrine; one knows that the Church cannot teach error and so assents to what is taught and continues to study and pray for greater light in areas that are for the moment less clear to the intellect. If one can agree that Christ through His One Church cannot teach error, than one could in good conscience approach the Church for full membership.
Other articles by the same writer (“Padro”) I recommended to you might prove of further help to you:
bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#CHURCH
G
guanophore
Guest
It was not developed until heresies arose a couple centuries later that denied the Divinity or Humanity of Christ. It became necessary for the Church to clarify the nature of Christ as both human and divine. Since Christ could not take tainted flesh to himself, Mary was understood to have been preserved from original sin (born in the same state that Adam and Eve were created in the image an likeness of God - without sin). This way, Jesus could take flesh of her flesh, without inheriting any stain of original sin.
All the Marian doctrines work backwards from the identity of Christ. Everything we understand about Mary comes to us by way of what we understand about Christ.
- Status