My struggle with the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Onthisrock84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Onthisrock84

Guest
Since tomorrow is the Assumption, I was hoping someone could possibly make me understand finally.

I spent two years in the seminary and was taught these two things so much and I still don’t grasp it. For example, if Mary was conceived without sin, it would put her on the same status as a literal goddess. Also how could she then have been given atonement for the sins of the fall of original sin from Christs sacrifice on the cross ? She in turn wouldn’t have been saved from his atonement and would be something completely different than the rest of humanity, again almost like a goddess. Now there are some extra canonical writings that point to the Immaculate Conception however they are not recognized as scripture. The same goes with the Assumption. Theres some extra canonical writings, one of which speaks of the disciples going to visit Mary’s tomb and her body is gone, but besides that nothing.
Notice the readings on both the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception really have nothing to do with what is being celebrated. The infancy narrative. I believe the vigil of the assumption has the reading from Revelation with the woman standing on the moon and giving birth to the child etc, however even if that is to be taken as Mary which I do, that is not to say she was assumed. I struggled with these two and have talked to many priests and even theologians and I still really just have blind faith with this one. Wheras every other solemnity the readings are connected to it, these two are speculative at best and at mass I am there wondering what they have to do with what is being celebrated.
If the Church wanted to make this so easy for everyone to accept without problems they should have been more liberal on the New Testament canon. I believe our New Testament is incredibly small for the amount of writings many church fathers quoted as scripture. Actually many things the church teaches as tradition is found right in these writings.
 
Interesting point about actual canon verses what other texts the Church Fathers frequently referenced. Has anyone addressed this? How did the early church view the writings that did not make it into the official canon but was heavily used by the early Fathers?
 
Mary herself praised her Savior.

The Assumption? If Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven, why do we doubt Jesus would have granted the same favor to his mother?
 
Onthisrock84 said:
I believe our New Testament is incredibly small for the amount of writings many church fathers quoted as scripture
Click to expand...
The simple answer to your question is that plenty of writtings can be helpful and true without being inspired scripture. But the church has defined the whole of what was inspired and that’s that, it doesn’t matter if you like it or if it’s easy.
 
Because God acts outside of space and time he pre-applied salvation through the Cross to Mary whilst she was still in the womb. So her state of Grace is i guess a bit like a spiritual version of getting an advance on your salary. However, God still gave her the choice to be the mother of Jesus. Which just shows how many gifts he gives us. At the time of the annunciation Mary had no idea she was conceived without sin and could have said no - just shows how obedient she was
 
Last edited:
Onthisrock84 said:
if Mary was conceived without sin, it would put her on the same status as a literal goddess. Also how could she then have been given atonement for the sins of the fall of original sin from Christs sacrifice on the cross ? She in turn wouldn’t have been saved from his atonement
Click to expand...
She precisely needed the atonement of Jesus, or the grace from God, to be conceived without original sin.
God does not work in human time.
Actually Bishop Barron addresses this point in his “Catholicism” series episode 4.
 
I know that I wish I’d read Fulton J Sheen’s “The Worlds First Love” many years before I did.
 
She is also the “New Eve”. When Eve was first created, did she have sin? No. Was she a goddess because of this? No, she was human, but sinless until the fall.
 
The Orthodox consider the Immaculate Conception to be an “overelaboration” of the faith, i.e. an unnecessary dogma that raises various questions for which the RC Church had to invent yet other teachings. For this reason the Orthodox have not accepted it. And the RC Church herself was fine without it until 1854. If you’re not comfortable with it, just disregard it. Don’t go denouncing it, just don’t feel obliged to get your head around it.

As for the Assumption, I don’t see any difficulty with it except if you take “bodily” to refer to the unaltered physical body that she had during her life on earth. To my knowledge the dogma does not insist on any particular meaning of “bodily”, so you’re free to interpret that in a way that works for you.
 
Onthisrock84 said:
Since tomorrow is the Assumption, I was hoping someone could possibly make me understand finally.

I spent two years in the seminary and was taught these two things so much and I still don’t grasp it. For example, if Mary was conceived without sin, it would put her on the same status as a literal goddess.
Click to expand...
How would it put her on the same status as a literal goddess? She is still very much a creature.
Also how could she then have been given atonement for the sins of the fall of original sin from Christs sacrifice on the cross ? She in turn wouldn’t have been saved from his atonement and would be something completely different than the rest of humanity, again almost like a goddess.
Click to expand...
Her Immaculate Conception are the merits of Christ’s sacrifice being applied to her. That is still from where she receives her justification. Unlike us, she was justified at the moment God gave her a soul. It was never for a moment not justified. But it was from Christ’s merit on the cross that this was done.
Now there are some extra canonical writings that point to the Immaculate Conception however they are not recognized as scripture. The same goes with the Assumption. Theres some extra canonical writings, one of which speaks of the disciples going to visit Mary’s tomb and her body is gone, but besides that nothing.
Notice the readings on both the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception really have nothing to do with what is being celebrated. The infancy narrative. I believe the vigil of the assumption has the reading from Revelation with the woman standing on the moon and giving birth to the child etc, however even if that is to be taken as Mary which I do, that is not to say she was assumed. I struggled with these two and have talked to many priests and even theologians and I still really just have blind faith with this one. Wheras every other solemnity the readings are connected to it, these two are speculative at best and at mass I am there wondering what they have to do with what is being celebrated.
If the Church wanted to make this so easy for everyone to accept without problems they should have been more liberal on the New Testament canon. I believe our New Testament is incredibly small for the amount of writings many church fathers quoted as scripture. Actually many things the church teaches as tradition is found right in these writings.
Click to expand...
We’re not a Bible-only faith. The Bible is not our only source of doctrine and beliefs. The use of the Bible in such a way is itself non-Biblical and inconsistent with the Church’s history going back to the earliest days. Consider that the Orthodox also hold Mary’s dormition and role as Queen of Heaven as doctrine to show this isn’t a medieval innovation of Rome. This is part of the Church’s tradition and faith.
 
I feel dreadful for even typing it but has Mary ever been criticised for being a ‘pushy’ parent/ hanging on to coattails of her son who was gaining fame throughout the region? Every so often, when I’m reading the bible or watching biblical stories, I just get this sense that she almost profited from Jesus during his ministry years. Logically, I know that we are not told this anywhere and she had to watch her son die. But I can’t shake that feeling…

Maybe it is because I’ve never been able to connect with her. I do ask for her intercession 😊 but I rarely feel anything for her but random irritation. I certainly don’t feel like she is my mother.

I will be going to Holy Day of Obligation tomorrow but it’s more because God wants me too than I want to.
 
Yes but where is anything in tradition about this?

It wasn’t even made a dogma until what 1950?
 
Onthisrock84 said:
She in turn wouldn’t have been saved from his atonement and would be something completely different than the rest of humanity, again almost like a goddess
Click to expand...
No. Yes. No.

First no, she needed a savior. Sin doesn’t just “go away.” She was in fact born without original sin through the grace won by Christ at Calvary. God is outside of time and can apply grace however he pleases. This is called retroactive grace, and this wouldn’t be the only instance of it. For example, John the Baptist’s baptism forgave sins through Jesus ministry as a way to prepare for His coming, but before the crucification. Similarly, Jesus himself forgave sins on his own authority before he was cruicified. Third, the animal sacrifices of the old testament only forgave sin because they are an imperfect fulfillment of the new covenant.

Yes: Mary is completely different from anyone else. That’s exactly why she’s so highly venerated, but there’s nothing unhuman about her. Is Eve also unhuman and a goddess because she was born free of original sin? Of course not. What actually makes Mary different is that she obeyed God. Through the lack of original sin, she was completely free to choose God, and through an abundance of His grace she chose God every single time she was tempted. She’s no different than us though, all she achieved was by God’s grace and not on her own account.

Second no: see above she’s just a person, the most holy person, first Christian, mother of Jesus, and sinless, but all she accomplished was simply by obedience to God’s will and not on her own account. She’s a person like you and me.
 
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Click to expand...
God gives each man enough grace that he could’ve been saved, but some clearly get so much more. The apostles come to mind, any of the mystics, the Blessed Virgin as you point out. Did any of them earn it? NO! Did any of them ever do anything but ride Jesus’s coat tails? NO! That’s the whole point in fact. I don’t know about you, but I plan on holding on tight and riding them all the way to heaven if I can. In all likelihood I’m just common pottery, not for some special purpose, but that’s OK. Christ still died for me and comes to me in the Eucharist every single day if I wish. And that’s enough.
 
Let me try. God is timeless. Jesus’s sacrifice is timeless. Mary was saved from original sin by the grace of Jesus’ sacrifice. Why, because it is unthinkable or impossible for God to take on sinful human flesh.
Because Mary was the Immaculate Conception she did not have to die. The church is silent on whether or not Mary died before she was assumed into heaven. Her flesh did not have to decay.
These doctrines were infallible proclaimed by the pope.
It will always take faith to believe.
 
Onthisrock84 said:
if Mary was conceived without sin, it would put her on the same status as a literal goddess.
Click to expand...
No. It would put he on the same status as Adam & Eve, who were both created without sin.
Also how could she then have been given atonement for the sins of the fall of original sin from Christs sacrifice on the cross ?
Click to expand...
same way Adam and Eve were. The atonement is for the human race, however, we each have to be saved individually.
Now there are some extra canonical writings that point to the Immaculate Conception however they are not recognized as scripture. The same goes with the Assumption. Theres some extra canonical writings, one of which speaks of the disciples going to visit Mary’s tomb and her body is gone, but besides that nothing.
Click to expand...
If the Church wanted to make this so easy for everyone to accept without problems they should have been more liberal on the New Testament canon. I believe our New Testament is incredibly small for the amount of writings many church fathers quoted as scripture. Actually many things the church teaches as tradition is found right in these writings.
Click to expand...
Remember, there were plenty of early Church writings that were 100% true, but not included in the New Testament because it was determined that they were solely human writings, not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Church never said that some of the select ancient writings were NOT inspired. The Church only confirmed the the ones the Church knew to be inspired. Meaning, it is theoretically possible (though not likely) for additional inspired works to not be a recognized part of the Bible.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top