Questions on the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Victoria33

Guest
I am a bit unsure of the right category for this… feel free to move to proper area anyone that can do this.

Questions on the Immaculate Conception, courteous responses only please.

The first one is pretty easy at least as far as being a “Yes”, “No” answer.

1.) Father Lovasik, Divine Word Missionary wrote his classic, “Mary, My Hope” and in it on the part on “Our Lady of Guadalupe” (the book goes through all of the Marian holidays), he says the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe IS the Immaculte Conception. So, is this true?? That is on page 144.

If I can post a link, yes, I see it is touched upon on the webi: Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Immaculate Conception (marys-touch.com)
It’s probably elsewhere too.

2.) Okay, I heard this Lutheran Pastor once on TV, he acknowledged that Lutherans hold Mary up in high esteem, different than most Protestant Pastors but he did not seem to really take it to heart as Martin Luther himself did per my understanding.

But his point on the Immaculate Conception was that if you say Mary was conceived without sin, does this not sort of just put the burden continuously on the parents, would not Sts Joachime and Anne now have to be sinless and so on in the lineage of Mary?? This is not important in that I accept the Immaculate Conception as a matter of faith but it is still an interesting question.
 
Last edited:
As to point two, it is not about lineage, but about what is wholly fitting and the new Adam being accompanied by a new Eve, the holiness of the ark, etc.

As for the first point, sometimes “Immaculate Conception” is used as a title for Mary (like at Lourdes) and certain images can emphasize the truth of the her complete opposition to sin and the evil one. I think the the priest is saying the image on the Tilma is such an image.
 
Victoria33 said:
1.) Father Lovasik, Divine Word Missionary wrote his classic, “Mary, My Hope” and in it on the part on “Our Lady of Guadalupe” (the book goes through all of the Marian holidays), he says the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe IS the Immaculte Conception. So, is this true?? That is on page 144.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what he’s trying to say here.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception. She has many titles, Our Lady of Guadalupe is one of her titles. Immaculate Conception is another. The IC was not defined dogmatically until 1854. What does it mean that Guadalupe “is” the Immaculate Conception? They are both titles of Mary, so… I guess I don’t get what his deal is with this?

Guadalupe is a private revelation, so really the Church doesn’t teach much on it per se.
Victoria33 said:
But his point on the Immaculate Conception was that if you say Mary was conceived without sin, does this not sort of just put the burden continuously on the parents, would not Sts Joachime and Anne now have to be sinless and so on in the lineage of Mary??
Click to expand...
No. Mary is preserved free from sin from her conception by a singular grace.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
But his point on the Immaculate Conception was that if you say Mary was conceived without sin, does this not sort of just put the burden continuously on the parents, would not Sts Joachime and Anne now have to be sinless and so on in the lineage of Mary?? This is not important in that I accept the Immaculate Conception as a matter of faith but it is still an interesting question.
Click to expand...
This would be at odds with scripture since Mary herself acknowledges the need for a savior in the Magnificat. In addition, this would exclude her from Paul’s argument in Romans 3 that universally condemns all mankind of sin. Lastly, the apostles themselves never attempt to make the positive case in their own writings that Mary was conceived without sin or that this is a fundamental point of faith that one must believe or be considered anathema.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
… would not Sts Joachime and Anne now have to be sinless and so on in the lineage of Mary? …
Click to expand...
No, and it was not necessary but rather fitting that the Virgin Mary be preserved free from sin.
And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good answers everyone, thanks.

Is there an encyclical “Behold Your Mother”, would we know it by another name? I know it is mentioned in this book quite a lot.

Okay, the book is copyrighted 1977, the Nihil Obstat is Joseph P. Penna, J.C.D. Censor Librorum and Imprimatur James P. Mahoney D.D., archidocese of NY if it is important. This would date the book.

For example, Mahoney was Aux. Bishop of NY, '72-97 just for the record.
 
Hodos said:
This would be at odds with scripture since Mary herself acknowledges the need for a savior in the Magnificat. In addition, this would exclude her from Paul’s argument in Romans 3 that universally condemns all mankind of sin. Lastly, the apostles themselves never attempt to make the positive case in their own writings that Mary was conceived without sin or that this is a fundamental point of faith that one must believe or be considered anathema.
Click to expand...
Mary herself recognizes her need for a savior because regardless she needed a savior. We can be saved in different senses:
Say I am about to walk into a hole. Savior A tells me, “hey, that’s a hole, let me help you avoid it.” If I accept this then he just saved me from the hole by preventing me from falling.
But say, instead of listening, I stubbornly keep walking. Oops. Now I’m in the hole. Help! I need to get out. Then savior A saves me from the hole by getting me out of it.

All humanity was under the curse of sin, and even Jesus suffered the pains of life despite Him being free from sin. He took up this pain regardless.

The deposit of faith is limited to what was known, even if only implicitly or in “seed” form, before the last apostle died. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in the fullness of Truth. Not everything is relayed in the Bible, and obviously first things first–the foundational basics are important to lay down first, after all. But, say, in Luke the fittingness is heavily implied, as Mary seems to be compared to the Ark of the Covenant (made of pure gold), the angelic greeting referring to her as “blessed” using the same language as a Christian at baptism (where we are made free of sin). And then through the ages the fittingness of her being kept free from sin by a special grace of God as to her purpose of carrying Christ was propounded very early, and like other concerns and struggles over the truth, the Holy Spirit guided the Church to declare one way or the other, and like how a Christian could no longer hold otherwise unless in ignorance after the declaration of the Trinity, or the Natures of Christ in One Person, or on and on through the ages, then likewise in this matter.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
This would be at odds with scripture since Mary herself acknowledges the need for a savior in the Magnificat
Click to expand...
I fail to see what part of the Magnificat you think references any comment from Mary “needing” a savior" in terms of her own salvation.

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord” - nope

“My spirit rejoices in God my savior” - nope again. Nothing here is contradictory to Catholic theology of Mary being conceived without the corruption of Original Sin - or as I have said it, the predilection to sin, our fallen nature.

“For He has looked with favor on his lowly servant” - nope; she is graced to bear the Anointed One, the Mashiac, the Messiah. No contradiction.

From this day forward, all generations shall call me blessed" - nope, has nothing to do with Original Sin or the lack thereof; it is about being the chosen one to bear Jesus.
Nor does any of the rest of the Magnificat say anything aligned with your comment.
Hodos said:
In addition, this would exclude her from Paul’s argument in Romans 3 that universally condemns all mankind of sin
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the hyperbole of Paul. A child in the womb is sinless - incapable of making a choice for sin. Likewise, so are babies; the Church sets a general age of seven as the age of reason, meaning the age of understanding right from wrong. So Paul is clearly using hyperbole. It is like a wife telling he husband “You never pick up your socks” or “You always leave the toilet seat up.” Both are hyperbole, approach “all” but stated as a hyperbolic statement for emphasis, not for the truth of the matter.
Hodos said:
Lastly, the apostles themselves never attempt to make the positive case in their own writings that Mary was conceived without sin or that this is a fundamental point of faith that one must believe or be considered anathema.
Click to expand...
Your sourcing everything in the Gospels is a Sola Scriptura argument, which did not find daylight until the 1400’s to 1500’s. And it ignores John’s inconvenient statement at the end of the Gospel: “There are also many other things Jesus did, but if they were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written”.

Mary’s sinlessness was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, and in particular in the scene in 2 Samuel 6. The ark was a box, containing Aaron’s staff, manna, and the Ten Commandments, with the figure of two angels on top; and God ws consdered to reside there between the angels.

The Ark was so holy no one was to touch it; Uzzah did and was struck dead.

If the Ark, a box was so holy, how much holier must be the woman who actually had the God Child in her womb? Scripture may not be specifically stating Mary’s holiness and sinlessness, but the evidence is there for all to see.
 
For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (Augustine, Letters , 148.15)
 
otjm said:
And it ignores John’s inconvenient statement at the end of the Gospel: “There are also many other things Jesus did, but if they were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written”.
Click to expand...
Notice there is no positive proof offered for a doctrine I MUST adhere to at the risk of eternal damnation according to you. And notice that you omit the fact that John wrote down THESE things about Christ that you may believe.
otjm said:
Ah yes, the hyperbole of Paul. A child in the womb is sinless - incapable of making a choice for sin. Likewise, so are babies; the Church sets a general age of seven as the age of reason, meaning the age of understanding right from wrong. So Paul is clearly using hyperbole. It is like a wife telling he husband “You never pick up your socks” or “You always leave the toilet seat up.” Both are hyperbole, approach “all” but stated as a hyperbolic statement for emphasis, not for the truth of the matter.
Click to expand...
I made no such hyperbole, nor did Paul. Paul stated that all men are actually sinful and engage in actual sin. You may reject that argument, which is fine. But you have demonstrated the dangers of making something other than apostolic truths handed down to us in scripture as the rule and norm of the faith by casually tossing aside the actual apostolic view of anthropology.
 
The Immaculate Conception, was God’s gift in anticipation of the salvation her son would bring.

In other words, Mary needed salvation as everyone else, except, she was conceived free of original sin.

The American Journal of Medicine had a article which showed how a mother received DNA in her heart from her unborn fetus.

So, do you think Mary received Jesus’s DNA when she conceived Him ?
 
Hodos said:
I made no such hyperbole, nor did Paul. Paul stated that all men are actually sinful and engage in actual sin. You may reject that argument, which is fine. But you have demonstrated the dangers of making something other than apostolic truths handed down to us in scripture as the rule and norm of the faith by casually tossing aside the actual apostolic view of anthropology.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
In other words, Mary needed salvation as everyone else, except, she was conceived free of original sin.
Click to expand...
It is a matter that St. Thomas Aquinas got wrong; not until later was the matter clarified, by John Duns, aka Duns Scotus.
 
And, in a typical irony, the ‘dunce cap’ that students wore in olden days when they were perceived as wrong or stupid was named in reference to Duns Scotus, which I always thought was blatantly unfair!
 
Hmmm… never heard that; wonder if it was considered a slur against the Scots.
 
Correct !

A little more about him; Duns Scotus was referred to as the Subtle Doctor, of the Church.

This didn’t mean he was less in intellect, but his writing were more spiritual than philosophical as Aquinas was.

However, the term, “dunce” became associated with those who were considered having less intellect than others, and the “dunce cap,” became part of the myth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top