Owning the Immaculate Conception

[robdaddyf]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception was defined by the Church and so it carries the “weight of Truth” but it remains something of a difficulty to me. All explanations I read seem to make arguments that seem merely philosophical in nature…almost like a logic proof. i.e. "If God is God and can create His own mother…and if Jesus who is the eternal Word of God was born and lived entirely without sin…since He came FROM His mother this then means it is only fitting that she too be without sin…because God could not be born into a “lesser vessel” (I oversimplify here) The emphasis in the arguments rest most solidly on Who Christ is…and therefore Mary must be…as opposed to…here is the evidence for Mary’s Immaculate Nature. I don’t know if this makes sense…I’m speaking a bit over my own head here…can you point me somewhere or offer some insight into this matter? I see more evidence for Mary being crowned “Queen of Heaven” than I do for her immaculate conception. Of course, this doesn’t mean that I don’t think it CAN be true…or that I can’t assume that I simply don’t understand and trust the Church to tell me what is true…I just want to own it a bit more.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I always liked the imagry that what was consealed in the Old Covenant was then revealed through the New Covenant. St. Augustine said something along those lines. For example, Jesus is always seen as the new David, the new Solomon, the new Adam.

Mary is seen as the new Eve…the new Ark of the Convenant. The first thing to consider is that Adam and Eve were created sinless. So with that in mind, it is reasonable to presume that if God created sinless people before, He can certainly do it again. The second thing to consider is that through the Old Convenant, the Word of God written in stone (the Ten Commandments) were held within the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was required to be made perfectly because anything less would be unsuitable for the stone tablets that contained the written Word of God. With the New Covenant, the Word became flesh and dwelt within the Ark of Mary. Mary was made perfect by God because anything less would be unsuitable for the Son of God.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…almost like a logic proof.

Well, I may have provided for you ‘logic’ proof as well in this case. The idea is grounded in Scripture though with the comparison to the Ark of the Covenant.
robdaddy:

can you point me somewhere or offer some insight into this matter?

Here’s some information written by Steve Ray on the subject. He provides the Scriptural parallels between the Old and New Covenants:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6811&CFID=19673527&CFTOKEN=96872946

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I always liked the imagry that what was consealed in the Old Covenant was then revealed through the New Covenant. St. Augustine said something along those lines. For example, Jesus is always seen as the new David, the new Solomon, the new Adam.

Mary is seen as the new Eve…the new Ark of the Convenant. The first thing to consider is that Adam and Eve were created sinless. So with that in mind, it is reasonable to presume that if God created sinless people before, He can certainly do it again. The second thing to consider is that through the Old Convenant, the Word of God written in stone (the Ten Commandments) were held within the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was required to be made perfectly because anything less would be unsuitable for the stone tablets that contained the written Word of God. With the New Covenant, the Word became flesh and dwelt within the Ark of Mary. Mary was made perfect by God because anything less would be unsuitable for the Son of God.

Also, we know that Mary was “full of grace” (Kecharitomene). We read in the Catechism:

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48

If she was “full of grace” (which, btw in greek signifies an actual character or physical trait) we can know that this would have to mean before, when those words were spoken, and after. The logical understanding that comes from this is that she was created thus. Either that, or she had sinned in the past and would have been made an unworthy vessel. Just as those things consecrated for God’s service in the temple had to be utterly clean and never have been used (and never be used) for everyday purposes, it only makes sense that she could become the Mother of God, full of Grace, the theotokos, if she had never had the stain of sin.

Or at least thats my interpretation of it.

FSC

 

[VociMike]

I cringe when I hear Catholics say that Mary had to be without sin because Jesus, God, would never have condescended to be born of a sinful womb. The whole point of the Incarnation is that Jesus, God, condescended to a whole lot more than that!

But here’s what works for me. In the Incarnation, Jesus Christ is the perfect union of God and Man, of Divinity and Humanity. He derived his perfect Divinity from his perfect Divine Father. It makes sense that he should derive his perfect Humanity from a perfect Human Mother. Because, I think you would agree, his Humanity had to be perfect. And if he derived his perfect Humanity from an imperfect Mother then it was all really just slight of hand. In such a case he really wouldn’t have derived his perfect Humanity from her after all, since she did not possess such perfection to pass along.

If Mary was not perfect, not without sin from her conception, then the Incarnation is based on a trick, an illusion, a deception. In such a case, God did not derive his perfect humanity from her after all, but simply created it. In such a case, there was no need for a “pretend” Mother at all, since his Humanity did not come from her. He could have just descended on clouds, which would have been the more honest thing to do.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think a large part of the problem is the misunderstandings of Mary’s life. Mary would have a single child which would be highly undesirable at that time. Mary would be without family in her 40’s highly undesirable. Mary would have no inheritance highly undesirable. Mary would not be able to pursue a second husband highly undesirable. Mary would be told, when presenting Jesus in the Temple, that hard times were ahead for her. So I would ask you to consider how Mary held up so well?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother robdaddy,

ALL teachings on the Blessed Mother are ALWAYS derivative of the doctrines on Christ, since Christ always remains the center of Mariological doctrines. So there will ALWAYS be a measure of “philosophy” involved. Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

Mary’s Immaculate Conception was defined by the Church and so it carries the “weight of Truth” but it remains something of a difficulty to me. All explanations I read seem to make arguments that seem merely philosophical in nature…almost like a logic proof. i.e. "If God is God and can create His own mother…and if Jesus who is the eternal Word of God was born and lived entirely without sin…since He came FROM His mother this then means it is only fitting that she too be without sin…because God could not be born into a “lesser vessel” (I oversimplify here) The emphasis in the arguments rest most solidly on Who Christ is…and therefore Mary must be…as opposed to…here is the evidence for Mary’s Immaculate Nature. I don’t know if this makes sense…I’m speaking a bit over my own head here…can you point me somewhere or offer some insight into this matter? I see more evidence for Mary being crowned “Queen of Heaven” than I do for her immaculate conception. Of course, this doesn’t mean that I don’t think it CAN be true…or that I can’t assume that I simply don’t understand and trust the Church to tell me what is true…I just want to own it a bit more.