Scotus on Immaculate Conception

[ConstantineTG]

It has been revealed to us by God through the Church, confirmed as such when it was infallibly defined as Dogma. For a Catholic such as myself, that is enough.

And there is a basis in scripture.

-Tim-

Everything has a basis in Scripture. Even the Protestants and neo-Arian cults base their beliefs on their own interpretation of Scripture. The question here is, how consistent is our teachings with that of the Early Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because the womb in which the baby Christ who is God had to dwell, had to be without sin and without blemish.

And Mary being sanctified at the Annunciation (some Fathers have actually taught this) achieves this. Though personally I beleive she is grace-filled from conception.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Although I didn’t ask about it, I have also wondered why Mary would be conceived immaculately. It is my understanding, although I’m certainly no expert on this, that the RCC does not teach that Mary had to be conceived immaculately.

The issue really is the RC teaching of original sin. Immaculate Conception merely says that Mary was never touched by sin her entire existence, and the only way to achieve that is through IC. Curious though as RCs today are insistent that Original Sin is not a personal fault, so what is the necessity for IC if Mary has no personal faults anyway?

 

[Mintaka]

Birth defects like blindness, and sicknesses like leprosy, and mental illnesses are not personal failings, either. So why didn’t God choose to make Mary a more perfect sign of suffering by afflicting her with every form that human suffering could take? Heck, why didn’t Jesus choose to live His whole life as an illiterate deaf-mute invalid who was senselessly raped and killed by the first stranger who came down the road into Nazareth?

God really does have the right to make artistically pleasing choices that also have hopeful theological connotations. Not every part of the story of salvation has to be sad and dreary.

He loved His mother. It was fitting for Him to make her the New, successfully holy but human Eve while He was casting Himself as the human race’s New Adam. It was nice and kind, like you’d expect from God Who loves us. And it’s great that Mary could take up the challenge that Eve failed of her own free will, and win her battle over sin with God’s help, of her own free will.

 

[mardukm]

I was watching a movie about Duns Scotus today. Well, I tried. It was mind-numbingly boring so I didn’t make it through the entire movie.

I was talking about it on Facebook with the man who pastored the Baptist church I used to attend and explained Scotus’ idea about a perfect Redeemer and how there had to be at least one person perfectly redeemed. In explaining it to him a question occurred to me, if Jesus could do this for Mary, why would He not also do it for everyone? The only answer I could think of was that it would have violated our free will. However, if it violates our free will, it would also have violated Mary’s free will. Any (name removed by moderator)ut?

WIth the sure premise that we are getting into the realm of theologoumena here —

There are some Eastern Fathers (to name one off-hand, St. Gregory Palamas - IIRC) who opined that her immaculate state was for the reason of providing the flesh of the Savior. That’s surely reason enough. It seems the early Fathers attached sinfulness to the flesh itself, and the flesh from which the Savior would obtain His flesh needed to be completely pure, not touched by the “dart of Satan” in any way.

Again, this has never been defined by the Church, so we are just speculating here.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The issue really is the RC teaching of original sin. Immaculate Conception merely says that Mary was never touched by sin her entire existence, and the only way to achieve that is through IC. Curious though as RCs today are insistent that Original Sin is not a personal fault, so what is the necessity for IC if Mary has no personal faults anyway?

“Sin” according to the definition of Trent is generally not a personal fault (i.e., something that is done), but is simply the absence of holiness. The definition includes the normal association of sin as a personal fault, but the latter does not define it.

In distinction, I think Easterns generally restrict the definition of “sin” to “personal fault.” Is that correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[EricFilmer]

Why wasn’t everyone conceived immaculately? Why just Mary? And saying that Mary was His mother isn’t an answer.

Actually it is an answer. Ultimately the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a mystery so we do not fully understand God’s mind at work in this, but it was obviously done for the sake of Mary’s role as the mother of Jesus. That makes it something exclusively tied to her.

If my mother had cancer and I came up with a cure and only gave the cure to her but refused to give it to everyone else, I would be a jerk, not a hero unless there were other factors at work. I;m looking for those factors.

This is not a proper comparison, because there is more than one “cure.” Let us say that I was a scientist who discovered the cure for cancer and developed more than one treatment for it. Let us say that I gave one treatment to my mother and another treatment to everyone else. In the end, everyone who did their part in undergoing the treatment would be cured. This would not make me a jerk.

In a similar way, God makes the grace of salvation available to everyone. In Mary’s case the grace was applied in a way different from the rest of us.

If Jesus could save Mary from the moment of her conception, He should be able to save us all from the moments of our conceptions. Why would He not do so? 2 Pet 3:9 says God wants everyone to come to Him.

How does the lack of being immaculately conceived prevent any of us from going to God?
How does God choosing not to have everyone immaculately conceived contradict his desire as stated in 2Pet 3:9?

The Catholic Church cannot just come up with a new doctrine out of thin air. It has to come from public revelation (Scripture & Apostolic Tradition). That does not mean that we are going to fully understand it but it should never stop us from trying to get a better understanding by asking questions and not just accepting “because the pope says so” as a final answer.

I’m not sure what you’re point is here. Are you suggesting that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not part of the Deposit of Faith?

 

[EricFilmer]

This is one of the great problems of the IC dogma and why Eastern Christians do not adopt this view. If God can do this for one, why not for all? Doesn’t it seem cruel?

I’m sorry but I’m not quite seeing your point here. Please define what you mean by cruel and explain how your definition theoretically applies to God if he gave Mary the gift of immaculate conception while withholding it from everyone else.

And of what necessity was it that it was done for one?

The issue really is the RC teaching of original sin. Immaculate Conception merely says that Mary was never touched by sin her entire existence, and the only way to achieve that is through IC. Curious though as RCs today are insistent that Original Sin is not a personal fault, so what is the necessity for IC if Mary has no personal faults anyway?

Ultimately this is all a mystery, so I do not have a perfect answer. Nevertheless, I will try to give some insight on this, imperfect as it may be. Sin, regardless of whether or not it is personal, represents being held in the grip of Satan. When Jesus decided to be like one of us, he derived his human flesh the same way that we all do, from our mothers. Had Mary ever experienced sin (personal or original) then her flesh would have once been attached to Satan, and therefore so would the flesh that she passed onto Jesus. If Mary was a sinner who was purified from sin at the Annunciation, this would, or course, allow her womb to be a pure tabernacle for the Messiah. But it would not change the fact that this tabernacle was once dirty. Satan could still look upon the flesh of the incarnate Christ and boast, “That was once mine!”