Mary, the Mother of God

[jlhargus]

The Roman church to which I refer is the one headquartered in the Sovereign State, aka Vatican, located on Vatican Hill on land donated by the mother of Constantine the Great, circa 4th century. Constantine was the one with the " in hoc signo vinces " apparition which caused him to set up “Christianity” as the state religion while throwing out the pagans. The term: pontifex maximus came out of these caesarian adventures as well. This same czar moved his empirical capital to Constantinople in the same century. Then there was WEST and EAST-- churches too. They did not always agree-- alot. Still do not agree about who is authorized. Can they both be right? Could they both be wrong?.

JL: Constantine never made christianity the state religion. He made it legal to practice Christianity just as it was legal to practice paganism. Constantine throughout his life presided over his pagan duties as emperor. He did favor Christianity wheather because he had a vision or because his mother was a Christian I don’t know.

Constantine was not baptized until 337 AD on his death bed, baptized by the Bishop of Nicomedia who reverted to Arianism after the council (Nicomedia the temporary capital was located near the new capital Constantinople which was being constructed these cities are located in present day Turkey.

After Constantine the empire was divided between his 3 sons. Long story short Constantine’s son Constantius became sole emperor in 350AD and tried to force Arianism on all the Bishops and the struggle began between the Church, Arianism and the state. Christianity was not made the state religion till about 380 or so by the first non-Arian Emperor.

 

[jimmy]

To use the word “nature” in that way, however, is to betray a bias towards a commonly Roman and Byzantine understanding of the term, as the OO would be perfectly comfortable stating that Mary gave birth to the nature of God the Word Incarnate.

Yes, that is true, but they would also say that there is one incarnate nature of the Word. It is a different understanding of a word. The way I use person is somewhat synonymous to the way the Orientals use nature. Alot of what I have said is directly from the Cyrillian (the same as the Oriental Orthodox) understanding and I have used the anathemas of Cyril in my posts (I think particularly the first two anathemas and the last one). And I have emphasiized that the flesh which was recieved from Mary is that of the Son of God. These are all emphases of the Oriental Orthodox Christology. So I would say that everything I have said is in line with the Oriental position as well as the Byzantine/Roman.

Everyone must take a perspective on the language. We can’t remain neutral on the words and not follow a specific tradition of thought because then you empty the words of their meaning. I am a Catholic who has very eastern leanings. I accept Chalcedon and II Constantinople as legitimate councils so there is no reason for me not to use the words in the way they use them. Words should not divide us. I think the claims of the Orientals goes deeper than just words. There is the accusation that the Chalcedonians were Nestorians. It wasn’t a question of simply words but of the whole understanding of who Christ is. I would say that almost all of it could be reduced to words and so the division in understanding really is not very much if any. Words should not divide. If the expressions of both groups are true then there shouldn’t be a division over the expressions. Whether I use two natures, one hypostasis in a Byzantine understanding or say ‘one nature of the Word incarnate’ in an Oriental understanding it shouldn’t cause any problem because essentially they are getting at the same thing, the unity of Christ. When I say that Mary gave birth to the Son of God become man (and consequently that she is the mother of God since she gave to God)every Oriental and every Byzantine should agree.

 

[jimmy]

The subject is Mary and "Mother of God’. God, The Spirit, The Holy–Pneuma Hagion, overshadowed a virgin called Mary and she conceived and gave birth to her FIRSTBORN SON. ( What does firstborn mean?) All the glory goes to God. This does not make Mary the Mother of God. God, Gen. 1:1, (Elohim, Jehovah; not Allah, etal) has no mother nor father.

Incarnation? Yes indeed: " The Word became flesh and dwelt among us; and we beheld His Glory as of the only begotten of the father, full of Grace and Truth. ( I AM THAT I AM in the flesh)

The Son of God is eternal as well. Why are we fixated on this motherhood thing? Where is this Queen of Heaven found in scripture?

Where will we be in 100 years?
Are we sure?

Peace,

James Least

James Least, it sounds like your refuse to call Christ God. If He is God then Mary is His mother. It is that simple. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God? This is an essential question that can help us understand eachother.

Elohim, Jehovah, yes Allah because that simply means God and was one of the early Syriac terms for God. God is not man either but He became man. If God has no mother then He equally has not become man and we are still in our sins.

I could just as easily ask you ‘why are we fixated on this Jesus person?’. We are fixated on Mary as the mother of God because it is essential to the incarnation; it is essential to who Christ was. The Son was begotten from eternity by the Father so He is eternal and precedes all creation. But through the will of the Father He was begotten within creation in the flesh and became man. God became man. I will say it again, God became man. I emphasize it because it is a necessary aspect of our faith and because that is what is at stake in these debates. God became man and assumed everything that is ours. He took the nature of Adam so that He could redeem it. And He did that in the same way every human person is begotten, He was conceived and born of a woman. So Elizabeth was right when she said to Mary (while filled with the Spirit), ‘why am I so favored that the mother of my Lord should come to me. [Luke1;43]’ She concieved, and gave birth to God made man.

Notice that there is an emphasis on the incarnation within this concept of mother of God. Mary is the mother of God made man. It doesn’t speak of eternity, it speaks of the incarnation and the reality that proceeds from that. It is legitimate to say that she is mother of God because just as God the Father begot the Son from all eternity, Mary begot the Son in the flesh.

 

[elvisman]

Of which the Diocese of Rome is not a part.

PROVE it.

We have lived it and have proven it for 2000 years. The line of succession goes ALL the way back - and we have the list of Popes to prove it.

You don’t have a historical leg to stand on.

 

[elvisman]

The Roman church to which I refer is the one headquartered in the Sovereign State, aka Vatican, located on Vatican Hill on land donated by the mother of Constantine the Great, circa 4th century. Constantine was the one with the " in hoc signo vinces " apparition which caused him to set up “Christianity” as the state religion while throwing out the pagans. The term: pontifex maximus came out of these caesarian adventures as well. This same czar moved his empirical capital to Constantinople in the same century. Then there was WEST and EAST-- churches too. They did not always agree-- alot. Still do not agree about who is authorized. Can they both be right? Could they both be wrong?

What think you?

Where will we be in 100 years?

James Least
Just a pilgrim passing through to gloryland.

Jesus established ONE Church - not 2 or 3 or tens of thousands.
**ONE Church (Matt. 16:15-19). **
East and West were parts of that SAME Church - not different Churches.
Authority lies only with the Catholic Church.

Constantine decrimilaized Christianity - he didn’t set it up as anything. He didn’t even convert until his deathbed.
Get your facts straight.

 

[elvisman]

Allow me to preface this with a public apology: I have broken some rules of decorum in the process of exercising religious zeal. I was not trying to derail the topic. I am sorry.

Yes, I believe Jesus is God in flesh, Immanuel. Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen The Father.”

I have concerns with Mary being Immaculate and perpetual. If she had no original sin, what about her mother and her mother’s mother? The sin nature is actually handed down the gene pool through the father. "By one man sin entered the world and death by sin; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there are none righteous, not one. What is the mechanism of Mary being without sin? Virginity and sinlessness are not the same. Was she deity from eternity?

Where will we be in a hundred years?

Selah,

James Least

I accept your apology - except for the fact that you are still referrring to the Catholic Church as the Roman Church. Please stop that.

**As for Mary’s sinlessness - you seem to have a problem with the fact that God can do as he pleases. He can save a person BEFORE they have the chance to fall into sin - or save them AFTER they have fallen. **

If God can send his son to us through a virgin - he can most certainly make her sinless. That does not make her a deity - it makes her “highly favored” and “full of grace”. Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28).

 

[James_Least]

JL: Constantine never made christianity the state religion. He made it legal to practice Christianity just as it was legal to practice paganism. Constantine throughout his life presided over his pagan duties as emperor. He did favor Christianity wheather because he had a vision or because his mother was a Christian I don’t know.

Constantine was not baptized until 337 AD on his death bed, baptized by the Bishop of Nicomedia who reverted to Arianism after the council (Nicomedia the temporary capital was located near the new capital Constantinople which was being constructed these cities are located in present day Turkey.

After Constantine the empire was divided between his 3 sons. Long story short Constantine’s son Constantius became sole emperor in 350AD and tried to force Arianism on all the Bishops and the struggle began between the Church, Arianism and the state. Christianity was not made the state religion till about 380 or so by the first non-Arian Emperor.

Most of the above was cited in several of my historical documents. I also picked up on an interesting fact: the Council of Nicea, avowed by most Christians, was called by Constantine the Great and chaired by him as well. Why? Arianism and Easter?

I still get the impression that he practised paganism until his deathbed–perhaps, somehow expecting baptism to save his soul. Did he not start the notion of Pontifex Maximus?

Anyway, it is interesting to see what was going on in the wonderful world of state religion in the fourth century CE. I wonder who has the deed to Vatican City?

Where will we be in a hundred years?

James Least

 

[agiosotheos]

PROVE it.

I have no need. You are the one who first made the claim that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church. So you are bound to prove that first.

We have lived it and have proven it for 2000 years.

Show me.

The line of succession goes ALL the way back - and we have the list of Popes to prove it.

Mere succession by laying on of hands does not the Catholic Church make.

**You don’t have a historical **leg to stand on.

Actually, the lines of succession of Alexandria, Antioch, and Etchmiadzin are pretty clear, and we have sufficient evidence to indicate that the Roman church failed to preserve the Apostolic tradition both in the Chalcedonian controversy and in the East-West Schism.

 

[agiosotheos]

**I accept **your apology - except for the fact that you are still referrring to the Catholic Church as the Roman Church. Please stop that.

No, he made no mention of the Catholic Church.

 

[agiosotheos]

Yes, that is true, but they would also say that there is one incarnate nature of the Word.

That is precisely what I was speaking of when I said “the nature of God the Word Incarnate”. Given that the phrasing is “mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene”, I think “one nature of God the Word Incarnate” is a better translation, and this is the translation that OO sources usually use.

 

[jimmy]

That is precisely what I was speaking of when I said “the nature of God the Word Incarnate”. Given that the phrasing is “mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene”, I think “one nature of God the Word Incarnate” is a better translation, and this is the translation that OO sources usually use.

I read your post and the first part was what stuck out to me so I responded. I later noticed that my first sentence repeated the second part of your post. Whatever the translation is it means the same thing. I have seen various phrasing used by Severus and Cyril. The phrasing that I remember from the Greek is the same as what you mentioned except that the article is repeated after theou. But it isn’t exact in all instances.

But my point stands, what I have said in my above posts is consistent with Oriental Orthodox Christology as well as Byzantine/Roman Christology. The only dispute is over the meaning of a word, which shouldn’t divide us.

 

[agiosotheos]

But my point stands, what I have said in my above posts is consistent with Oriental Orthodox Christology as well as Byzantine/Roman Christology. The only dispute is over the meaning of a word, which shouldn’t divide us.

My point was that you were trying to represent the beliefs of the OO, but you were not using their own terminology to convey it. When you say that they do not believe that Mary gave birth to a nature, but they themselves would probably say this, it might become rather confusing. Instead of using Byzantine terminology to try to convey Alexandrian Christology, it would probably be better to first explain Alexandrian terminology, and then explain their beliefs using that terminology.

 

[jimmy]

My point was that you were trying to represent the beliefs of the OO, but you were not using their own terminology to convey it. When you say that they do not believe that Mary gave birth to a nature, but they themselves would probably say this, it might become rather confusing. Instead of using Byzantine terminology to try to convey Alexandrian Christology, it would probably be better to first explain Alexandrian terminology, and then explain their beliefs using that terminology.

No, I wasn’t trying to represent the beliefs of the OO; I was representing my own beliefs regarding Christ which are those of the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church. I brought up the Orientals because James Least brought up 15 hundred year schisms. The fact is that the Orientals affirm Mary as mother of God. If you want to get offended about my use of the word ‘nature’ in a Byzantine sense then start a thread about it. This attitude you have is simply a factious attitude; you want to fight about the meaning of a word even though the underlying theology is essentially the same. If the Orientals use nature to refer to the whole person that is fine, but irrelevant. To get all worked up about how I used the word and Byzantine bias is petty considering that the discussion is not about the Oriental Christology but rather about whether Mary is the mother of God.

I am not trying to get too technical with my terminology. I have consciously avoided technical language to keep my statements easy to understand. So words like hypostasis and nature and whether Christ is out of two natures or in two natures really aren’t that necessary to my posts, and certainly not the distinction between the understanding of the word nature from a Byzantine and a Coptic perspective. If you want to debate the technicalities of the two traditions then start a thread and I would gladly participate.

 

[jimmy]

My point was that you were trying to represent the beliefs of the OO, but you were not using their own terminology to convey it. When you say that they do not believe that Mary gave birth to a nature, but they themselves would probably say this, it might become rather confusing. Instead of using Byzantine terminology to try to convey Alexandrian Christology, it would probably be better to first explain Alexandrian terminology, and then explain their beliefs using that terminology.

I wasn’t representing the OO belief, I was representing my own which is that of the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. The specific meaning of the word ‘nature’ is irrelevant to the thread. The only reason I brought up the Orientals is because James Least brought up the ancient schisms. The fact is that the Orientals agree that Mary is the mother of God. To argue the meaning of the word ‘nature’ is irrelevant to the thread and petty, but if you start a thread on the technicalities of the Oriental Christology vs. the Byzantine/ Roman Christology I would gladly participate. The only thing that matters on this thread is that we agree about the unity of Christ. We would both agree that God became man and suffered and died in the flesh. He was born of the virgin Mary and made flesh and so she is consequently the mother of God according to the flesh. We would agree that God the Word took human flesh and it became His to such a point that whatever happened to that flesh happened to God. We agree on these things, which is what matters on this thread.

 

[James_Least]

I wasn’t representing the OO belief, I was representing my own which is that of the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. The specific meaning of the word ‘nature’ is irrelevant to the thread. The only reason I brought up the Orientals is because James Least brought up the ancient schisms. The fact is that the Orientals agree that Mary is the mother of God. To argue the meaning of the word ‘nature’ is irrelevant to the thread and petty, but if you start a thread on the technicalities of the Oriental Christology vs. the Byzantine/ Roman Christology I would gladly participate. The only thing that matters on this thread is that we agree about the unity of Christ. We would both agree that God became man and suffered and died in the flesh. He was born of the virgin Mary and made flesh and so she is consequently the mother of God according to the flesh. We would agree that God the Word took human flesh and it became His to such a point that whatever happened to that flesh happened to God. We agree on these things, which is what matters on this thread.

Do we need to start an ecclesiology thread? I thought the religious world was getting more ecumenical. We seem to be having difficulty with “who has the keys?”.

Peace,

James Least

 

[elvisman]

Do we need to start an ecclesiology thread? I thought the religious world was getting more ecumenical. We seem to be having difficulty with “who has the keys?”.

Peace,

James Least

I agree.
This thread is about Mary - Mother of God.
It has been hijacked by a few Eastern Orthodox zealots who will not relent.

They need to begin a thread about the Great Schism and allow the conversation on this thread to run its course.

 

[elvisman]

No, he made no mention of the Catholic Church.

One last word on the matter before you carry this onto another thread where it belongs:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
**ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο. **

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
**aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9) **

Acts 9:31
**So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied. **

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

PS - From the 1st century on - we see the Church being called “Catholic”:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp
**When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 110]).

Got a problem with that? Talk to the Fathers - they usually do know best.

 

[jlhargus]

Most of the above was cited in several of my historical documents.

JL: I have no idea what you mean by, “Most of the above was cited in several of my historical documents”.

I also picked up on an interesting fact: the Council of Nicea, avowed by most Christians, was called by Constantine the Great and chaired by him as well. Why?

JL: Why? peace and unity, Constantine called and did have great impute in providing transportation, food and a place to house the 300 bishops. Most were from the east but the one who presided was Hosius from Cordova, Spain the pope sent 2 priest, not bishops as his personal reps they signed the council docs ahead of the other bishops right after Bishop Hosius). Constantine did address the council, the council was free to discuss and decide on its own. Arius presented his statement and the bishops debated and condemned Arius’ teaching as heresy.

If not mistaken this is the creed of Nicaea. “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from Light, ture God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father”

This sounds very orthodox for and apostate church. Many of the Bishops present were missing limbs and eyes from the great persecution that only ended around 311AD. I don’t think they would just roll over and play dead for the emperor. Where was the out cry from the so called true Christians if the Church apostatized? Show me historic evidence for instance who were the leaders? what did they write in defence of the so called true way? Or do you claim Arius had the true faith?

Arianism and Easter?

JL: You will have to explain here. I have no idea what your point might be.

Anyway, it is interesting to see what was going on in the wonderful world of state religion in the fourth century CE. I wonder who has the deed to Vatican City?

JL: Yes it is interesting. I don’t know who has the deed to Vatican City. I would guess the Bishop of Rome. By the way Vatican City is not on one of the seven hills of Rome as you implied in another post. Nor was St Peter’s given to the Church by Constantine’s mother. She did give St John Lateran to the Church. So much for you historical documents. I suggest you go to a public library for more reliable information.

I still get the impression that he practised paganism until his deathbed–perhaps, somehow expecting baptism to save his soul.

JL: My understanding as emperor he continued to performe his pagan duties. When or if he stopped I don’t know, nor care. What he expected from baptism I don’t know, I would pray salvation. I do know he was baptized not by an Orthodox Catholic Bishop, but a heretic Arian Bishop. And the next few emperors were Arian and tried to force Arianism on the Orthodox Catholic Church, yet they didn’t succeed.

Did he not start the notion of Pontifex Maximus?

JL: Well your historical Documents appear to be wrong again. Pontifex Maximus goes way back in Roman history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus
livius.org/pn-po/pontifex/maximus.html

 

[jlhargus]

Yes, I believe Jesus is God in flesh, Immanuel. Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen The Father.”

I have concerns with Mary being Immaculate and perpetual. If she had no original sin, what about her mother and her mother’s mother? The sin nature is actually handed down the gene pool through the father. "By one man sin entered the world and death by sin; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there are none righteous, not one. What is the mechanism of Mary being without sin? Virginity and sinlessness are not the same. Was she deity from eternity?

JL: Perpetual Virgin: Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel

MT 1:23 Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us

Ezek 44:1 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it. [The gate through which the Lord God has entered, no one may enter through it. Mary is that gate of heaven through which the Lord entered and no one may enter through it. If God commanded the gate made by hands closed because He passed through it in a vision, how much more the gate not made by hands by which God passed through in the flesh.]

Lk1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel How shall this be seeing I know not a man? [Mary was espoused to Joseph, why would she ask the angel, “How shall this be seeing I know not Man”. The Church has always seen this as Mary having a vow of virginity, otherwise it would be only natural to expect to conceive and bare children, especially for a Jewish woman.]

NBRS 30:6 And if she had at all an husband when she vowed or uttered ought out of her lips wherewith she bound her soul 7 And her husband heard it and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it then her vows shall stand and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips wherewith she bound her soul of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her

 

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED:

Yes, I believe Jesus is God in flesh, Immanuel. Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen The Father.”

I have concerns with Mary being Immaculate and perpetual. If she had no original sin, what about her mother and her mother’s mother? The sin nature is actually handed down the gene pool through the father. "By one man sin entered the world and death by sin; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there are none righteous, not one. What is the mechanism of Mary being without sin? Virginity and sinlessness are not the same. Was she deity from eternity?

JL: IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent Because thou hast done this thou art cursed… 15 And I will put ENMITY between THEE AND THE WOMAN and between THY SEED AND HER SEED it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel [God said, he would put ENMITY between THEE=Satan and THE WOMAN=Mary. Her seed Christ would be born after her. Yet God put enmity between Satan and Mary before. Therefore she would always be at enmity with Satan, as she was never of his seed, never under sin. Like Mary’s seed there was never a time when Mary or her SEED was not at enmity with Satan.

ROM 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace 7 Because the CARNAL MIND IS ENMITY against God [Mary was always at enmity with Satan as God said I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN THEE (SATAN) AND THE WOMAN (MARY).]

LK 1:46 And MARY SAID MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour 48 For HE HATH REGARDED THE LOW ESTATE OF HIS HANDMAIDEN for behold from henceforth ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED 49 For HE THAT IS MIGHTY HATH DONE TO ME GREAT THINGS and holy is his name. …52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats and EXALTED THEM OF LOW DEGREE

LK 1:28 And the angel came in unto her and said Hail thou that art HIGHLY FAVOURED the LORD IS WITH THEE blessed art thou among women 29 … 30 And the angel said unto her Fear not MARY for THOU HAST FOUND FAVOUR WITH GOD [Hail, the angel salutes Mary as a dignitary, or as one of importance. He calls her, Highly favoured or “full of grace”, Mary was in a state of grace and the Lord was already with her before the angel came. Usually angels are shown reverence, but this time an angel shows reverence to a person.]

In the garden of Eden, Satan spoke only to Eve, who was created without sin. Eve spoke to Adam and gave him the apple. Had Adam, the head of the human race, not eaten the apple we would still be in the Garden of Eden. Adam was head and represented all humanity, his sin caused the lose of the indwelling life of God. It was thru Eve’s cooperation with Satan that sin entered the world. It is thru the new Eve, Mary, who was conceived without sin, who cooperated with God, that salvation enters the world thru Christ who is head and represents all humanity. Mary undid what Eve caused, Christ undid what Adam caused.

[John the Baptist, was FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, sanctified, in the womb, therefore JOHN was BORN WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN. Adam lost the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for mankind when he sinned. Original sin is not an actual sin, but a lack of the life of God within, we are not born deserving eternal life, that which is born of flesh is flesh, we are not born with the Holy Spirit in us. That’s why we baptise infants, to restore supernatural life to the soul.]

Lk1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, even FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB. Lk1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elizabeth HEARD THE SALUTATION OF MARY, THE BABE LEAPED IN HER WOMB; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [The same God who filled and sanctified John the Baptist in the womb filled and sanctified Mary at conception, with God nothing is impossible.
The immaculate conception is not a great leap of faith at all. Those doctrines on Mary are defined because they reveal who Christ is. Mary a type of Eve, reveals Christ as new Adam. Mary as mother of God, reveals Christ is God made flesh. When you deny Mary as mother of God, you deny God became flesh. 2Jn1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge JESUS CHRIST AS COMING IN THE FLESH, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm KECHARITOMENE, FULL OF GRACE.
The soul of the precursor was not preserved immaculate at its union with the body, but was sanctified either shortly after conception from a previous state of sin, or through the presence of Jesus at the Visitation. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother’s womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. (Catholic Encyclopedia) newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm Move down to, The conception of John the Baptist.