Mary's Immaculate conception

[blessedrosary]

littlesheep:

If she was born sinless, why did she need a Savior?
Tying to understand
Just a
littlesheep

      Her Savior was the one who gave her the grace to keep herself from sinning.  She still NEEDED a savior to do that for her.  She didn't need to be saved from sins she committed but saved to not ever commit them.

Take this analogy, i hope it makes sense: Say you are driving on a snowy road and you slide off and land in the ditch. You need a tow truck to pull you out. That is like the forgiveness of sins through Jesus’ death. Now say your tires keep the traction on the road good enough to keep you on the road. That is the grace given to Mary via the Immaculate Conception. Now both those things i mentioned have nothing to do with the driver. You can try to steer to stay on the road or just drive more cautiously, but sometimes things are out of your control but still in control of God.
So, basically, don’t ever say that Mary didn’t need a saviour. No, she didn’t need forgiveness of sins for she never sinned. But she still needed God’s help to not sin.

 

[adrift]

Luke 1:48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;

Question: Did she know she was born sinless? Or does the words "from now on” not mean anything?

You are assuming something that this verse does not say. What is the from now on? She is going to give birth to the Savior. This is the event that is from now on.

I know timing is everything, for 1200 years the only sinless one was Christ.

Your history is wanting

Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).

“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).

There are more but this should show that your 1200 years is off

 

[Gnosis]

This seems to conflict, in my mind at least:

She still NEEDED a savior to do that for her. She didn’t need to be saved from sins she committed but saved to not ever commit them.

So essentially, Mary was not perfect of her own merit. God gave her the power to resist all sin, a power which he does not give to the rest of us. This was a special gift to her.

When asked why God does not give this gift to all of us, so that all of us can resist sinning and live a pure and sinless life as God wishes, I was told:

Our Lady’s IM conception was not without the grace of free will, she still had that choice but she chose to do only God’s will not her own. Unlike of our first parents.

If she had free will and chose to adhere completely to God’s plan, than she was sinless through her own merit. If God gave her the gift of being sinless, that is, he gave her a nature that refused to sin, then she lacked free will because her sinlessness was not a result of her choices, but rather a gift from God.

So how is that Mary can have free will, be sinless, and still need a savior?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Gnosis:

So how is that Mary can have free will, be sinless, and still need a savior?

Are we on the same page and understand the difference between original sin and actual sin? Mary needed a savior from original sin. Free will does not figure into people born after the Fall regarding it. In Mary not being born with it is from God, so Mary did not merit it. That Mary did not commit any actual sin can be attributed to her not having concupiscience–again a gift of God that Mary with free will can cooperate.

Scott

 

[Shibboleth]

Mary had free will just as Adam, Eve, and the Angels had free will. I say this wincing that no one will bring up bound will. I don’t think most in this thread are ready for that end of this discussion.

Adam and the Angels did not have original sin (I will from here on out call ancestral sin) but they still had the ability to choose against God and of course that happened in a few cases.

The difference between us and the Angels is that they do not have concupiscence which is part of the inherited stains of Ancestral Sin. Concupiscence is the internal drive in the fallen man that makes us want and need to sin. Infused Grace helps to remove this but we are not fully sanctified at baptism.

Mary could have choose against God but God being omnipresent, eternal, and omnipotent knew that she would not – not that I know the workings of God but it seems logical. Anyways, I would guess that God choose her for this reason.

Ironically Mary needed a savior because of the Christ. Before Jesus she could have met the letter or the Law just as Elisha did and entered into Heaven but since the Christ had come she was not bound by the Old Law or Old Covenant but the New Law of Christ or The New Covenant.

If after the coming of Christ had she rejected him and tried to achieve salvation on her own merit (no merit is our own as our works are God’s works within us) she would have at that point sinned and been damned as no one comes to the father accept through the Son.

For it tells us in the Bible by Christ’s words about the Jews that deny the Christ and stay to the Law, “If they had not know me they would be without sin but since they know of me they have sinned” – paraphrased of course.

 

[Atreyu]

Gnosis:

If she had free will and chose to adhere completely to God’s plan, than she was sinless through her own merit. If God gave her the gift of being sinless, that is, he gave her a nature that refused to sin, then she lacked free will because her sinlessness was not a result of her choices, but rather a gift from God.

So how is that Mary can have free will, be sinless, and still need a savior?

Compare Mary to Eve. As Catholics, we believe that both Mary and Eve were born free from Original Sin, and hence were not affected by the stain of original sin. We also believe that both Eve and Mary had free will (as do we all). Now, Eve chose to sin, Mary chose not to sin. It is only the grace of God that allowed Mary to choose not to sin. And as Scott said, Mary needed a saviour from original sin (and hence needed a saviour).

In your paragraph that I have quoted, replace the words “refused to” by “was able to choose not to”. Eve also had the ability to choose not to sin, as she was also born with the same nature as Mary. But she chose to sin. Therefore, (in the Catholic viewpoint) both Mary and Eve had freewill.

Disclaimer: I may have said some things out of ignorance that are not in fact true according to the Catholic Church. And I should really put this disclaimer into my signature

 

[BrianH]

blessedrosary:

we have Jesus' word in Mathew 16:18 to our first pope that we would not be led astray.

This would be a whole other thread…which I am sure has been covered 100 times. I am also pretty sure the Peter as the first pope would probably be on another board.
AND
I would define tradition differently but we would expect that
BrianH

 

[flameburns623]

In the first place, I as a Protestant find the claim that Mary was sinless unnecessary and superfluous. WHY should she have been sinless? Sin does not adhere to flesh like some sort of demonic cocklebur, and ‘original sin’ is not ‘sin’ in the proper sense of the word, but simply a predilection to sinful behavior. God could just so easily have had Jesus conceived in the ordinary way, of a wanton prostitute who abandoned Him after birth–such a woman would have been just as ‘blessed’ in bearing the Christ-child as was Mary. That God foreordained the Christ was to be born of a virgin was to visibly set apart Jesus as something unique and never before or since seen–to denote Jesus’ Deity, NOT to make something special of the woman who bore Him.

Secondly, I find at least three places in the Gospels wherein Mary is rebuked directly by Jesus. I therefore deny that she WAS sinless.

The sin of doubt and hard-heartedness: Luke 2:48-49:

48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? 50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

The sin of presumption: John 2: 3-4:

3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

The sin of opposition: Mark 3: 21, 31-35:

21And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself . . . . .31There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

It is not at all clear that Mary did not also sin in the Annunciation itself: the words she uses to question the angel echo the words of her in-law, Zecharias. It is an imposition upon the text to suggest that Mary’s question was asked in faith whilst Zecharias’ question was asked in faithlessness. We are in fact not told why Zecharias was punished for his question whilst Mary was not–it may well have been in view of the One whom Mary was to bear that she was excused her transgression. Nor does Mary’s equality with the rest of her race in respect to sinfulness make her any less blessed for having borne the Christ, the Son of God.

So far as the issue of free will–it belongs in a thread of it’s own. I am on record elsewhere as holding that the Scriptures do NOT teach that human beings have ‘free will’ as the term is ordinarily understood. We have ‘culpability for sin’, and our wills are ‘free within the limits of our nature’–but our nature is fallen and at enmity against God. All of which is a distraction from the central point of this thread.

Blessedrosary:

Protestants act like it is an offense against Jesus by venerating his mother. I think most people take great honor in hearing complements of our own biological mother. Woudn’t you agree?

At the risk of being a tad too personal, I will make the point that my own mother happens to be an alcoholic. Understand that she is a ‘functional’ alcoholic who pays her bills, meets all of her obligations, and is generally a very very nice person. She has never been abusive, violent or neglectful. The fact yet remains that the woman puts away more alcohol in an average night than a lot of men put away in a week. More than I generally consume in a year or more. The quality of her life is greatly diminished by her habits, at least IMHO. I and my brothers love and respect her greatly for many things, but we all recognise that she suffers from this character flaw. If therefore, someone approached me lauding my mother as a paragon of sobriety–I would not be flattered or honored but would realise that the person was ignorant of the real nature of my Mom.

 

[Shibboleth]

The sin of doubt and hard-heartedness: Luke 2:48-49:

48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? 50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

The sin of presumption: John 2: 3-4:

3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

The sin of opposition: Mark 3: 21, 31-35:

21And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself . . . . .31There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Lack of Knowledge is not sin least Jesus sinned for not knowing the day and the hour. The first one is just silly they were afraid for his safety something that he obviously was not impervious to… nor had he revealed is purpose yet.

 

[blessedrosary]

flameburns623:

The sin of presumption: John 2: 3-4:

3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

.

First of all, i have learned to interperet this verse completely differently. Sure Jesus said that to his mother. But he finally obeyed his mother also, therefore in discipline he knew the authority of his mom over him. “What have I to do with thee” as I have learned means that Jesus is asking her, by what authority she tells that to him. Or in other words, why should he listen to her. Well, the fact that he changed the water to wine showed his obediance to his mother

 

[blessedrosary]

littlesheep:

I know timing is everything, for 1200 years the only sinless one was Christ. Then something changed. HUMM wonder what that was? God suddenly reveal that idea? Talking about God revealing something outside scripture is frankly speaking, speaking -

Ok, so all Christians for the first 1500 years decided that Sacred Tradition was the word of God and all of a suddend one man declined it and said something to the effect of, “the bible is all we need” I sure bet God was telling him that too, right?

 

[chriswilliam]

I go to the Polish National Catholic Church. We don’t believe in Mary’s immaculate conception because it isn’t in the bible. But we honor Her like the romancatholics do.We have devotions to her pray to her she is mentioned in our prayers and we say the hail mary and she is the mother of God. She did God will and Jesus’ conception was immaculate. We also question her assumption for the same reason Aug. 15 is the enterance of Mary into heaven for us.

 

[seabird3579]

Those who struggle with the concept of the Immaculate Conception have a heart condition, in my opinion. This doctrine is a matter of Faith. Just as Christ’s Divinity is a matter of Faith. Just as it is a matter of Faith to accept Mary’s Virginity and that she conceived by the Holy Spirit.

All are matters of Faith.

For those who believe there is more than enough “evidence” to support the matter, but sadly, for those who choose not to believe – no amount of “evidence” will be convincing.

I believe that if protestants could get past their “fear” of Mary’s role in the salvation of all mankind, as given her by God’s choice, they would probably sense the truths that others are trying to explain.

I would like to pose a question. Since when is God required to proove anything to us mere mortals as to why or how He decides to accomplish His plan for salvation. How is it that we decide that we have the proper creditentials to “evaluate” whether or not God should “grace” a particular person to do a particular job?

One of the pitfalls of believing “sola scriptura” is that you fall into a false sense of security thinking, okay now I have all of the tools I need to determine every act of God, now I can know God completely and Know how it is He will choose or would have chosen to do something. —Pride to the extreme.

Thus, it is said, the things He has hidden from the learned and cleaver, He has revealed to mere children.

 

[seabird3579]

chriswilliam:

I go to the Polish National Catholic Church. We don’t believe in Mary’s immaculate conception because it isn’t in the bible. But we honor Her like the romancatholics do.We have devotions to her pray to her she is mentioned in our prayers and we say the hail mary and she is the mother of God. She did God will and Jesus’ conception was immaculate. We also question her assumption for the same reason Aug. 15 is the enterance of Mary into heaven for us.

Pardon me, chriswilliam,

I have never heard of that denomination, but based on what you’ve explained, shouldn’t your church be called the Polish National Protestant Church? Even Martin Luther honored Mary and encouraged others to say the Rosary.

 

[BrianH]

Seabird
A heart condition? Goodness.
I would say that the virgin birth and Christ’s divinity are very biblical, they are very clear on this I do not think anyone on this board would say contrary, well any Christians anyway. I for one assure you I would believe the Immaculate Conception if it was in there OR if I knew the early church taught it…130 CE is my understanding of when this can be clearly documented too late of a tradition to be valid in my opinion.
here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on this:

"In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter. "

You are entitled to see pride in others…I just do not see facts and I am not about to go against the scripture or valid early tradition(if it existed on this). I seek the truth, I think the pride comment is…unduly harsh. You are entitled to your view of course though!!!
Take care
BrianH

 

[flameburns623]

seabird3579:

Pardon me, chriswilliam,

I have never heard of that denomination, but based on what you’ve explained, shouldn’t your church be called the Polish National Protestant Church? Even Martin Luther honored Mary and encouraged others to say the Rosary.

The Polish National Catholic Church is a schsimatic Church with valid sacraments, like the Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. They split from the RCC over the First Vatican Council and the issue of Papal Infallibility. They have accepted no Papal pronouncments since that time and hence reject the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. They probably do pray the Rosary however.

 

[StMarkEofE]

blessedrosary:

I fail to understand why most Protestants have a problem believing that Mary was sinnless. If Jesus is God, which ALL Christians believe, then why is it so bad to believe that our Lord and Savior deserves to be born of someone somewhat-worthy to be his mother.
Also, if I could create my own mother, which Jesus could have done, then why WOULDN’T he make her perfect?
Also, Protestants act like it is an offense against Jesus by venerating his mother. I think most people take great honor in hearing complements of our own biological mother. Woudn’t you agree?
Please explain your beliefs on this issue to me. Thanks and God bless.

Orthodox Catholics believe that all are conceived without this original sin, but only the fall of adam which results in bodily death.

 

[BJRumph]

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump.,sermon 2)

Interesting, this is one of the last popes I would have thought would be against the idea. Interesting; gotta read this one… As quoted, I think this is one of the best definitions put forth to date on the issue.

Are we on the same page and understand the difference between original sin and actual sin? Mary needed a savior from original sin.

Sorry to interject, but… This point is totally irrelevant, as the defining section of the Dogma in question asserts that she was born entirerly free of “all” taint of Original Sin. The point I find interesting, is that same definition, despite occasional asides as to her (mary’s) life-long sinlessness, explicitly fails to proclaim her free of personal sin, only Original Sin.

Not to throw in a “new” angle on it, but given the “assurance” that Mary had free will, it makes more theological sense to assert that the Grace of Immaculate Being would have been granted to Mary at the Annunciation. By making her personal conception the point of adding the Grace, then it really supports the concept that she really didn’t have a choice, or at least Diminishes the choice said to have been made at Jesus’ conception, which is more Biblical, and generally more highly regarded. If, however, the Grace of Immaculate Life was given at her choice of agreeing to the Will of God, then it reinforces her Free Will, as well as reinforces the importance and correlation as the Second Eve (as explained by Pope Innocent3).

And regardless, the doctrine just does not define anything, as far as I can see, that has ANY Theological “necessity” in regards to My Faith or personal salvation, quite unlike the Marian Dogma that actually DID make it into the Creeds.

I would like to pose a question. Since when is God required to proove anything to us mere mortals as to why or how He decides to accomplish His plan for salvation. How is it that we decide that we have the proper creditentials to “evaluate” whether or not God should “grace” a particular person to do a particular job?

Ahh, but the issue isnt that God “couldn’t” have done so, but rather, what proof do we have that suggests that He did do it? It seems far more damning for us to arbitrarily create a doctrine of God doing something out of a human passion (that we theologically say He doesn’t have), just because some of us feel that if we were God, we would want to elevate our theotokos in such an uneccesary manner. If God really wanted us to make sure we all were clued in on what is now a Dogma “essential to salvation”, He would have prepared us though more than is apparent (such as OT prophets, NT epistles, even the Apocolypse of John…). The issue is NOT us desciding to ignore what God has given us, or even denying “HOW” He wishes to do something; the issue, again, is what evidence do we have that He did act in this manner. So far, noone has provided anything even slightly compelling in this regard. Sorry.

Indeed, I think most Christians of any “sort” positively believes that God does, in fact, grant the Graces necessay to accomplish those things He desires of us.

Why is Church on Sunday and the New Testament Canon an acceptable Catholic Tradition, but not the Immaculate Conception? If you follow some Catholic Traditions, by what basis do you decided which?

Because not all traditions are either Equal or Theologically Essential. The Rosary is a Tradtion, but it is not capable of being made into Dogma, any more than the Code of Cannon Law could be. At this point in my Formation, The IC AND the Assumption both fall into this category. Not sure about Sunday, but without looking it up, I’d also have to agree that such is a liturgical practice, and prolly could be changed if desired by the Church. Going to Mass is essential, and therefore designating a regular time to necessitate fulfilling that requirement is expected. However, I think that the Church could as easily tell us tomorrow that the “mandatory” Mass is on Tuesday, and we would be “bound” as a matter of Discipline to obey the change.

Anyway, just my late night thoughts on it.

 

[BJRumph]

The issue is NOT us desciding to ignore what God has given us, or even denying “HOW” He wishes to do something; the issue, again, is what evidence do we have that He did act in this manner.

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that I believe that did do this, so I am not in any way (at this point) conceeding that we are unjustly questioning God’s “WHY” He did this (as asked in the question I was responding to below).

The issue does not even get to the point of our asking “Why did He make Mary Immaculate from (her) Conception?” or “How could He have made her Immaculate in such a manner?”. The issue is, plainly, “Did He do this thing?” or even “Where did we derive this idea that He did this thing?”

For instance, it is though supernatural revelation that Tradition has brought us the Divine Mercy devotion, therefore the “tradition” surrounding it suggest to me that it is a thing desired by God, unlike the “controversy” over the use/non-use of Patens. Did the Assumption or the Immacualte Conception get introduced into the Tradition in a like manner (that demonstrates that God affirms that this is something that He did in fact DO), or otherwise was demonstratbly more than a product of misplaced filial devotion? What are the origins of the doctrines?

I realize the claim of Infallibility is made upon the “fact” of Holy Spirit Inspiration, but that does not really help establish that God has positively asserted either of these doctrines as being “historical” or even Theological fact, let alone weather or not either of them can actually be made into Dogma. It just becomes circular reasoning that begs the question as the very claim of papal infallibility is tied up so closely to these two doctrines, in which they both feed each other (for good or ill).

Understand, I am not trying to be antagonistic, but trying to get this figured out, as I am currently in RCIA (with my family), and so this is an important thing to resolve for me.

 

[adrift]

flameburns623:

Secondly, I find at least three places in the Gospels wherein Mary is rebuked directly by Jesus. I therefore deny that she WAS sinless.

The sin of doubt and hard-heartedness: Luke 2:48-49:

48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? 50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

A rebuke. No! If it were, he would not have gone with them in obedients. How could this be a sin for Jesus’ parents? If I tell my child that he must go to bed, and he say but mom I have homework. He is not rebuking me but explaining to me that which I do not know.

The sin of presumption: John 2: 3-4:

3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
O.K. I assume that you don’t pray to Jesus? There would hardly be a sin to asking a son for help. Again this is not a rebuke but an explanation.
The sin of opposition: Mark 3: 21, 31-35:

21And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself . . . . .31There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. So now Mary sins because she seeks out her son? How is this a rebuke? No Jesus uses his mothers visit to teach a truth but it is not a denial or rebuke.

It is not at all clear that Mary did not also sin in the Annunciation itself: the words she uses to question the angel echo the words of her in-law, Zecharias. It is an imposition upon the text to suggest that Mary’s question was asked in faith whilst Zecharias’ question was asked in faithlessness. We are in fact not told why Zecharias was punished for his question whilst Mary was not–it may well have been in view of the One whom Mary was to bear that she was excused her transgression. Nor does Mary’s equality with the rest of her race in respect to sinfulness make her any less blessed for having borne the Christ, the Son of God. Unclear only to you. Mary’s question was not one of doubt. Her question is one of clarification. If, as it has been thought from the begining, that she made a vow of virginity, than she needed to know if she was being released from this vow. That there was no rebuke from the angel should show you the error of your doubt.

.