Necessity of the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPG

Guest
Hello,
I am trying to figure out how to respond to those who think that the Incarnation could have happened with Mary bearing Original sin?
So to say, The Son, as he prevent Mary to inherit Original Sin during her conception, could just have not taken sin on him during the Incarnation, and then have saved Mary like anyone else. Just her redemption would have happened like mine or yours.

I think that’s problematic for Jesus, totally human but sinless: this would weaken the human position in favour of the god-only nature :D, becoming human but not inheriting the human’s nature would be absurd.
It could nevertheless be possible for God.
So, how to explain the necessity of the Immaculate Conception for the Incarnation. Why did God chose to prevent the Mother so that the Son also was born sinless in the flesh, and not just the Son becoming flesh and not inheriting Original sin since he is God?

Thank you !
 
MarcoPG said:
Hello,
I am trying to figure out how to respond to those who think that the Incarnation could have happened with Mary bearing Original sin?
So to say, The Son, as he prevent Mary to inherit Original Sin during her conception, could just have not taken sin on him during the Incarnation, and then have saved Mary like anyone else. Just her redemption would have happened like mine or yours.

I think that’s problematic for Jesus, totally human but sinless: this would weaken the human position in favour of the god-only nature :D, becoming human but not inheriting the human’s nature would be absurd.
It could nevertheless be possible for God.
So, how to explain the necessity of the Immaculate Conception for the Incarnation. Why did God chose to prevent the Mother so that the Son also was born sinless in the flesh, and not just the Son becoming flesh and not inheriting Original sin since he is God?

Thank you !
Click to expand...
I think the Immaculate Conception is more fitting than necessary. Jesus could have been born of Mary, and not inherited original sin (He’s incapable of that since he’s God), or Mary could have been cleansed of original sin before his conception or birth (some form of proto-baptism).

But the way God chose to do it is the most fitting.

God Bless
 
I’m not a theologian, but in going to take a crack at this from a logical point of view.

Our understanding of the Immaculate Conception is based on our understanding of the Ark of the Covenant. If one need to be without sin in order to simply open the Ark, which contained the Word of God on stone tablets. Logic would dictate that one who was baring the Word of God Incarnate, would also need to be without sin.

Perhaps it is logical to assume that by granting Mary the gift of Immaculate Conception, God may have made it easier (or even possible) for Mary to refrain from all sin in order to bare Jesus. If she was to hold God in her womb, then she would need to be pure from sin.

Thoughts?

God Bless
 
The Protestant church I am in does not have doctrine or dogma on this as such, because
there is very little spelled out in words in the scripture on it.

I tried to reason it out with thinking, like you are doing,…and there seems to be scripture
pictures anyway, that seem to support at least the possibility of Mary being in the form of
the woman before the fall, Eve. Her state, as such, because of Jesus being called the last Adam by scripture,…this adds to the possibility of Mary being the last Eve., or second Eve, as such, but doesn’t prove it.

My Protestant group thinks the following re how Jesus could come from Mary and Jesus be sinless. We found scripture that says that sin is passed down the male line, not the female line. These scriptures are about the headship of the male over the female that God described would be a result of the fall, and include when the fall occurred, God calling
out ‘Adam, where are you?’, not "Adam and Eve, what happened.’ Note from the text
that God questions Adam further, and Adam is required to bring an answer to God, in which he blame-shifts onto the woman. The text further reveals that Eve ate out of deception, while Adam was not deceived, but ate anyway. This also could account for
why God questioned him, not Eve, because, according to CC division of sin, Eve had venial sin, and Adam had mortal sin, but we think it is more the headship than the degree of accountability.

Scripture also says that through ‘ADAM’ all sinned, then through “JESUS all were made righteous”.

See how Adam is marked out and no mention of Eve at all in the fall?

So, taking this into account some P. thinking is that Mary was able to have JEsus in her womb, and not just in the womb, but Jesus came from Mary’s egg, because sin cannot be passed to the next generation through the female side, but only through the male side.

This is how sin completely bypassed JEsus and JEsus had to be from Mary’s flesh and blood if LINEAGE the word in the bible text that describes Jesus as King Davids bloodline, means exactly bloodline, or if adoption of Joseph of Jesus can quality for lineage?

I think lineage means bloodline.

What does Coptic and Eastern think re Mary, do they believe she had to be without the fall and without sin?
 
Eastern Churches all see Mary as All-Holy and Sinless. There are various speculation about the MOMENT when this occurred. Some concur with the Latin definition, from birth; others say at the Annunciation; still others, at the Birth of the Lord. All agree she had no children except Jesus.

The explanation you give about sin being passed through the male line is as good as any, but wouldn’t work within an Eastern framework or Latin actually, because we don’t believe sin as guilt is passed down at all; only the leaning-toward of sin (called concupiscence). Jesus did not have this leaning toward sin because of 1) Mary’s sinlessness 2) Christ being God the Word, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity 3)Christ is the 2nd Adam, born without concupiscence like the 1st Adam.
 
bilop said:
I think the Immaculate Conception is more fitting than necessary. Jesus could have been born of Mary, and not inherited original sin (He’s incapable of that since he’s God), or Mary could have been cleansed of original sin before his conception or birth (some form of proto-baptism).

But the way God chose to do it is the most fitting.

God Bless
Click to expand...
I agree with the emphasis on “fitting” rather than “necessary.”

The problem with arguing that it is necessary is that it makes it sound like Jesus could not have been sinless unless Mary was sinless. Well, if that’s the case, then Mary couldn’t have been sinless unless St. Anne was sinless. And St. Anne couldn’t have been sinless unless her mother was sinless. Etc.

I think a better approach is to talk about the incompatibility of man’s sinfulness with God’s holiness. Look at 2 Samuel 6:7. When Uzzah reached out his hand and touched the Ark to steady it, he was struck dead. And the Ark only held God’s presence in an analogous way as compared to Mary who held Him in her very body for 9 months. If there was any trace of sin in her, one would think she would have been vaporized (in all fairness to Uzzah :p).
 
I don’t mean to doubt the Immaculate or that it is fitting with jewish history and theology, I just ask why he chose to do it that way, if it wasn’t necessary.

I would like to point out the difference between these two graces: In the case of Jesus’ death for our sins, it was also not because of our merits, but necessary for us.

In the case of the Immaculate Mary, even if it’s because of the merits of her Son, and not hers, the grace of salvation would have been available anyway. I don’t get God’s choice, even if I see the parallels and the logic.

And as you may know Thomas Aquinas does not help here 😊
 
MarcoPG said:
I don’t mean to doubt the Immaculate or that it is fitting with jewish history and theology, I just ask why he chose to do it that way, if it wasn’t necessary.

I would like to point out the difference between these two graces: In the case of Jesus’ death for our sins, it was also not because of our merits, but necessary for us.

In the case of the Immaculate Mary, even if it’s because of the merits of her Son, and not hers, the grace of salvation would have been available anyway. I don’t get God’s choice, even if I see the parallels and the logic.

And as you may know Thomas Aquinas does not help here 😊
Click to expand...
Fitting, in that Mary as the New Eve, is the first one among us restored in Christ.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Fitting, in that Mary as the New Eve, is the first one among us restored in Christ.
Click to expand...
Thank you, but I thin you didn’t understand. I don’t doubt that it fits. It fits marvelously, but I just wonder why such a grace, if she would have been saved anyway by her Son through her faith.
 
MarcoPG said:
Thank you, but I thin you didn’t understand. I don’t doubt that it fits. It fits marvelously, but I just wonder why such a grace, if she would have been saved anyway by her Son through her faith.
Click to expand...
She is saved by her Son through her faith according to Latin teaching of the Immaculate Conception; only it is applied prior to her birth, not afterward like the rest of us, because it is fitting as Christ’s Mother - according to the Latin teaching.

the example the Latin’s use usually: Saved from falling in a well by being moved from falling in - Immaculate Conception
Saved from falling in a well after falling in - Us.
 
SyroMalankara said:
She is saved by her Son through her faith according to Latin teaching of the Immaculate Conception; only it is applied prior to her birth, not afterward like the rest of us, because it is fitting as Christ’s Mother - according to the Latin teaching.

the example the Latin’s use usually: Saved from falling in a well by being moved from falling in - Immaculate Conception
Saved from falling in a well after falling in - Us.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, I would know that :D. I just wonder why God made that choice, if he could have done it for Jesus only, and what sense it would have made to give her the grace of being without sin, if she had said no to the angel, since her free-will was not affected by the grace.

Mmh, I guess I will have to surrender, and admit that since it fits, it is enough. :signofcross:

I mean, out of Himself (Love), God made it possible to save us, so the same with the repetition (and perfection) of the old covenants in the and last. It is at the same time one more proof of the Truth, and the beauty of man (and woman) as temple of the Lord.
 
MarcoPG said:
As a Catholic. I would know that :D. I just wonder why God made that choice, if he could have done it for Jesus only, and what sense it would have made to give her the grace of being without sin, if she had said no to the angel, since her free-will was not affected by the grace.
Click to expand...
I suppose we can ask Him once we get there; until then I can only speculate. For one, Our Matriarch Eve had was born without a leaning-toward sin. She said no freely in the garden.

Since God is not limited by time, he can and does apply prayers and graces as He sees fit. Imagine, that you may be alive today because your future great grandson is a holy priest praying the Mass on your behalf? Is it possible?
 
SyroMalankara said:
I suppose we can ask Him once we get there; until then I can only speculate. For one, Our Matriarch Eve had was born without a leaning-toward sin. She said no freely in the garden.

Since God is not limited by time, he can and does apply prayers and graces as He sees fit. Imagine, that you may be alive today because your future great grandson is a holy priest praying the Mass on your behalf? Is it possible?
Click to expand...
Possible it is, I will do my best to educate my children in the Faith. For the rest Inch’Allah 😛
 
MarcoPG said:
And as you may know Thomas Aquinas does not help here 😊
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, St. Augustine does not help here, either.

Others have discussed necessity, some have come close with the idea of Mary as the new Eve, but just a little further and you get to the point of the theological/biblical big bang, which is that Mary represents a recapitulation of creation.

Her immaculate conception, and beyond that, her perpetual sinlessness, is a full implementation of re-creation, or, a new creation, a creative restoration to the state of pre-original sin, which was the will of God.

so, issues about the “moment” of her immaculate conception are like shavings that fall to the floor, to be swept away. she is the ideal realization of the sinlessness of the believer, based on the merits of the Savior – as even she says. What we see in her is what God sees in us, because of the merit of Jesus, because of our status as adopted daughters and sons of God.

Her humility and obedience are our model. They are the human light by which we are drawn to the divine light. Hers is the blinding light of divine favor.

O MARY,

conceived without sin!

PRAY for us

who have recourse to thee.
 
BeingSaved said:
What does Coptic and Eastern think re Mary, do they believe she had to be without the fall and without sin?
Click to expand...
The Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. None of the churches in our communion do.

In the Coptic Church, we are rich in descriptions and allegory that show St. Mary as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy regarding the coming of Christ, so I would guess that our “how” and “why” are mostly answered by these, rather than by talk of literal bloodlines or philosophical speculation on this matter. For instance, in the Holy Week hymn “Tai Shori” (This Censer), the censer is the womb of St. Mary, which contains the incense (Jesus Christ), which is offered up on the altar of God the Father, before His throne. The lyrics in English are:

This censer of pure gold,
bearing the sweet incense,
in the hands of Aaron the priest,
offering incense upon the altar,
before the mercy seat,
is the holy Virgin Mary;
Who brought forth Jesus Christ;
the Son and Logos.
The Holy Spirit came upon her,
purified her, sanctified her,
and filled her with grace.
Through her intercessions,
O Lord, grant us the forgiveness of our sins.

You will notice that we chant that “the Holy Spirit came upon her, purified her, sanctified her, and filled her with grace”. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. Philosophical explanations and arguments are necessary in the minds of those who need them, but we are not that way. Sometimes people do want to know “Well, how can it be…?”, and in those cases we have our creed, hymns, and other resources. It is important to understand, however, that the East in general (Coptic and non) did not develop any dogma from the philosophical, rationalist tradition embraced by the Romans. This is not to say that we’re irrational (although I wouldn’t begrudge you for wondering as to the veracity of that statement :)), but rather that what God did is given much more emphasis than speculation about how He may have done it. The how is important, of course (very much so), but…well, it’s also already there: “the Holy Spirit came upon her, purified her, sanctified her, and filled her with grace.” Ta-da! We’re done. 😉

That may seem primitive or uninteresting to Christians from Western philosophical traditions, but it works for us.
 
dzheremi said:
The Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. None of the churches in our communion do.

In the Coptic Church, we are rich in descriptions and allegory that show St. Mary as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy regarding the coming of Christ, so I would guess that our “how” and “why” are mostly answered by these, rather than by talk of literal bloodlines or philosophical speculation on this matter. For instance, in the Holy Week hymn “Tai Shori” (This Censer), the censer is the womb of St. Mary, which contains the incense (Jesus Christ), which is offered up on the altar of God the Father, before His throne. The lyrics in English are:

This censer of pure gold,
bearing the sweet incense,
in the hands of Aaron the priest,
offering incense upon the altar,
before the mercy seat,
is the holy Virgin Mary;
Who brought forth Jesus Christ;
the Son and Logos.
The Holy Spirit came upon her,
purified her, sanctified her,
and filled her with grace.
Through her intercessions,
O Lord, grant us the forgiveness of our sins.

You will notice that we chant that “the Holy Spirit came upon her, purified her, sanctified her, and filled her with grace”. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. Philosophical explanations and arguments are necessary in the minds of those who need them, but we are not that way. Sometimes people do want to know “Well, how can it be…?”, and in those cases we have our creed, hymns, and other resources. It is important to understand, however, that the East in general (Coptic and non) did not develop any dogma from the philosophical, rationalist tradition embraced by the Romans. This is not to say that we’re irrational (although I wouldn’t begrudge you for wondering as to the veracity of that statement :)), but rather that what God did is given much more emphasis than speculation about how He may have done it. The how is important, of course (very much so), but…well, it’s also already there: “the Holy Spirit came upon her, purified her, sanctified her, and filled her with grace.” Ta-da! We’re done. 😉

That may seem primitive or uninteresting to Christians from Western philosophical traditions, but it works for us.
Click to expand...
It’s not always very black and white where the Latin beliefs end and the Byzatine Orthodox begin; many Syriacs also interpret the Hymns of St. Ephraim and some other Fathers as supporting of the same position as the Latins.

Please see this for more as well:
fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/06/immaculate-conception-and-orthodox.html
 
dzheremi said:
The Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. None of the churches in our communion do.
Click to expand...
This would be news to literally every Ethiopian Orthodox individual I’ve spoken to about Our Lady. :o

Peace and God bless!
 
SyroMalankara said:
It’s not always very black and white where the Latin beliefs end and the Byzatine Orthodox begin; many Syriacs also interpret the Hymns of St. Ephraim and some other Fathers as supporting of the same position as the Latins.
Click to expand...
Syriac Catholics of various flavors, sure. Not Syriac Orthodox. The Syriac Orthodox Church does not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception dogma (e.g., “We do not believe that there is any special miracle called Immaculate Conception connected with the origin and birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary” – Malankara Orthodox Church). As I wrote in reply to the other post, none of our churches (OO) do.
Please see this for more as well:
fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/06/immaculate-conception-and-orthodox.html
Click to expand...
Was this meant to be in response to my reply? I don’t understand the point of this. I was replying to a question asked about the Coptic Church, and extended it to include our other churches, since we share the same faith…I specifically mentioned nothing of the Byzantines, since I’m not one, so this link is irrelevant to me and the question of the post I was replying to. 🤷
 
Ghosty said:
This would be news to literally every Ethiopian Orthodox individual I’ve spoken to about Our Lady. :o

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
And it would likely be news to the wrong Ethiopian Orthodox leaders in the United States who have again wrongly thought that this was a part of our faith when it isn’t. This did not play out well for the errant leaders in question, when push came to shove recently: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/Letter_to_HH%20Shenouda.pdf (summary of PDF: Abp. Mattias was wrong, according to our common faith. The IC is wrong.)

Reply to the letter by HG Bishop David, who later came to the church in question at the request of the people to teach on this issue according to the Orthodox faith: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/HG%20Bisop_David-Letter.pdf

While it is long, the recently reposed Ethiopian Patriarch, HH Abune Paulos, wrote a very good PhD dissertation in 1988 on the Ethiopian beliefs regarding St. Mary. You can read the full thing here (in PDF form): medhanialemeotcks.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Filsata.pdf

The immaculate conception is listed at the end of the dissertation, as a Roman Catholic view, not appearing before in any of the chapter regarding the EOTC belief, as it is not an EOTC belief. The EOTC view is the same as all OO view: St. Mary was born the same as any of us. She was not “immaculately conceived”, but she was free from sin – just not in an a priori sense as the IC would have people believe.

It is unfortunate that there is not more material from the EOTC available in English on this matter, as I too have met Ethiopians who thought that this was a confusing issue, given how (and this is unfortunately something they likewise share in common with the rest of the OO, including Copts) they sometimes use terms that are in common with the RCC, while not understanding how they are understood in Western Christianity. You can likewise find terms like “Original Sin” being used by Copts (I’ve seen also my own bishop use it, though he’s never talked about it any of the times he’s visited us since I’ve been here), but a little bit of digging generally shows that we don’t mean the same thing as the West does. This is the same with EOTC, and unfortunately the confusion does sometimes pull in high-ranking leaders, including bishops and archbishops, leading to situations like what has happened in the EOTC in Kansas, which required outside assistance to sort out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top