The Immaculate Conception - does it compare to baptism?

[anodos]

Hello, recently a non-Catholic friend sent me a pamphlet condemning the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The author of the pamphlet argues that the IC makes Mary something other than human, and that, to be fully human, Christ could not have been born of an immaculately conceived woman (the author has no problem with the Virgin Birth, however. ).

I was planning to respond with my understanding of what the IC really was - a wiping away of Mary’s “original sin”, just as in Christian baptism. I did not become an alien, nor did I lose the ability to commit sin, when I was baptized as an adult; Mary received this same salvation, though by the Holy Spirit rather than water. She was just baptized at a much earlier age than I was. (I also mention that Adam and Eve would have been immaculately created, so “original sin” not a necessary component of humanity.) How could being born of a baptized woman make Christ less than fully human?

Is this an acceptable Catholic response, or am I making too close comparison between Christian baptism and being immaculately conceived?

 

[joshua_b]

The Church affirms quite explicitly that baptism is necessary for salvation. With that being said, it is important to remember that although water baptism is normative, there are other extra-ordinary yet equally valid forms of baptism.

My woefully uneducated and uninspired opinion is that Mary would have HAD to be baptized (CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.), although I have no idea how to explain what form that would have taken, and I would not even attempt to propose that myself, for fear that I would have to try to explain it.

 

[snarflemike]

You’re on the right track. To be fully human is to be free from sin, not to be a sinner. Sin is a weakness, a defect in our humanity. Jesus was fully human exactly because he had no sin. Likewise Mary. The rest of us will have to wait for God’s final merciful cleansing before we can claim the same.

The reference to Adam and Eve is particularly important. Did God create less than fully human creatures from the get-go, and they only became fully human when they sinned? Did they improve when they sinned?

 

[anodos]

My woefully uneducated and uninspired opinion is that Mary would have HAD to be baptized (CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.)

Thank you. What I am wondering is, was the wiping away of original sin in the Immaculate Conception equivalent to Christian baptism? As Mary was the first Christian, was she also “pre-baptized”?

 

[joshua_b]

Thank you. What I am wondering is, was the wiping away of original sin in the Immaculate Conception equivalent to Christian baptism? As Mary was the first Christian, was she also “pre-baptized”?

In a sense, yes you could think of her as pre-baptized. That is precisely what the Immaculate conception states.

Most Protestants misconstrue the doctrine to believe that it implies Mary did not need a Savior since she was born without the stain of original sin. That is not so. The Catholic Church fully acknowledges that the original sin of Mary was removed only by the application of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In her case, the sacrifice was applied in an extra-ordinary fashion (prior to-or at-her conception…i’m certainly no theologian or scholar so I don’t know the mechanics at that granular a level). being applied as such, her soul never suffered the effects of original sin that it would have suffered my merit of her incarnation. Remember that our souls exist independent of our body ("…even before you were born, I knew you").

Either way, Jesus sacrifice still needed to be applied in some way, as His sacrifice is the only means by which any human is saved. And, baptism is the sign of the new covenant. I really don’t see any way around this. If I were to try to explain it, I guess that I would explain it by saying that Mary was baptized directly by God.

 

[anodos]

Thanks, joshua_b.

 

[Nita]

The Church affirms quite explicitly that baptism is necessary for salvation. With that being said, it is important to remember that although water baptism is normative, there are other extra-ordinary yet equally valid forms of baptism.

My woefully uneducated and uninspired opinion is that Mary would have HAD to be baptized (CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.), although I have no idea how to explain what form that would have taken, and I would not even attempt to propose that myself, for fear that I would have to try to explain it.

Keep in mind that the sacrament of Baptism was not instituted until the time of the New Covenant; therefore, Mary was conceived before the sacrament of Baptism had been instituted by Christ.

 

[anodos]

Keep in mind that the sacrament of Baptism was not instituted until the time of the New Covenant; therefore, Mary was conceived before the sacrament of Baptism had been instituted by Christ.

Thanks.

In Mary’s case, would baptism still have been necessary even though the stain of sin had already been wiped away? Or did Mary pre-receive, in essence, the “baptism for the remission of sins” that would later be instituted?

 

[joshua_b]

Keep in mind that the sacrament of Baptism was not instituted until the time of the New Covenant; therefore, Mary was conceived before the sacrament of Baptism had been instituted by Christ.

A valid point, but she was conceived before Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross as well. God exists outside of the confines of time and space.

 

[joshua_b]

Thanks.

In Mary’s case, would baptism still have been necessary even though the stain of sin had already been wiped away? Or did Mary pre-receive, in essence, the “baptism for the remission of sins” that would later be instituted?

I don’t think it is either/or. My contention is that the stain of sin was wiped away BECAUSE of baptism, or whatever vehicle through which Jesus’ sacrifice was applied to her.

We know that it is only through application of Christ’s sacrifice that Mary was saved; she could not have been saved prior to the application. And, baptism is the vehicle through which Christ’s sacrifice is applied as taught by the Church.

Nita does bring up a very interesting point, but I do not see any way around baptism if we go by what we know to be revealed Truth as expressly defined in the catechism.

 

[thistle]

Thank you. What I am wondering is, was the wiping away of original sin in the Immaculate Conception equivalent to Christian baptism? As Mary was the first Christian, was she also “pre-baptized”?

Mary was conceived free from original sin and obviously born free from it.
John the Baptist was conceived in original sin but born free from original sin.

 

[anodos]

Mary was conceived free from original sin and obviously born free from it.
John the Baptist was conceived in original sin but born free from original sin.

Thank you!

Is my Christian baptism, and Mary’s immaculate conception, essentially the same thing (except that mine occured as an adult and hers was at or before conception)?
Did we both receive the same salvation, though hers was a preservation from sin and mine happened after the fact?

Or am I missing something important?

 

[joshua_b]

Thank you!

I
Did we both receive the same salvation, though hers was a preservation from sin and mine happened after the fact?

This one I am comfortable answering. And the answer is definitely YES!

 

[anodos]

This one I am comfortable answering. And the answer is definitely YES!

I love definite answers! :extrahappy:

 

[thistle]

Thank you!

Is my Christian baptism, and Mary’s immaculate conception, essentially the same thing (except that mine occured as an adult and hers was at or before conception)?
Did we both receive the same salvation, though hers was a preservation from sin and mine happened after the fact?

Or am I missing something important?

No quite sure what you mean by “did we both receive the same salvation”?
If a person dies immediately after being baptised then they are saved. However, assuming we don’t die immediately after baptism we do not know if we will be saved or not. That depends on whether we die in a state of grace or not.

 

[anodos]

No quite sure what you mean by “did we both receive the same salvation”?
If a person dies immediately after being baptised then they are saved. However, assuming we don’t die immediately after baptism we do not know if we will be saved or not. That depends on whether we die in a state of grace or not.

I’m sorry I confused the issue! When I used the word “salvation”, I meant the remission of original sin through baptism or through the preservation of the Immaculate Conception.

I didn’t mean attaining heaven after dying in a state of grace.

 

[Nita]

Thanks.

In Mary’s case, would baptism still have been necessary even though the stain of sin had already been wiped away? Or did Mary pre-receive, in essence, the “baptism for the remission of sins” that would later be instituted?

The purpose of baptism is the removal of original sin - that is, one’s soul being translated from the state of original sin into the state of sanctifying grace. Therefore, if one is no longer in the state of original sin but is filled with the life of sanctifying grace (as Mary was), there is no need for Baptism. I do not know whether or not Mary ever was baptized after Jesus instituted the sacrament, but if she was it would not have been because she needed it. It would probably have been as an example - similar to Our Lord’s being baptized by John for the forgiveness of sin when He had no need for such a Baptism.

The Church recognizes 3 forms of Baptism - baptism by water, blood, and desire. Mary was incapable of receiving baptism under any of these forms at the instant of her conception.

Mary would be an example of a time when God chose to bestow the gift of sanctifying grace to someone in an extraordinary manner - outside the bounds of the sacrament.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: Mary and Baptism, Communion, et al –

Mary didn’t need Baptism for the remission of her sins. But Baptism is also about entering into Christ’s Body, about dying to human life and being born to divine life. Finally, it’s also about obeying Christ’s stated commands. So yeah, it’s pretty sure that Mary would have gotten Baptized, just like it seems clear that if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned, they would have been slated to be brought into God’s life in some way.

Anyway, we know that Mary got Confirmed (ie, the Holy Spirit came upon her at Pentecost along with the rest of the disciples), and when Peter was preaching to everybody in Jerusalem to get baptized, he certainly seemed to think that he and the disciples were already baptized. (Ditto Jesus saying that the Apostles had already been “washed all over”, and only needed feet washed now.) Heck, Mary probably got baptized by John the Baptist also, if only out of family feeling.

Just because we don’t hear about it and the Church doesn’t teach it, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen; it just means it’s not essential to salvation that we know about it. (And if we can figure it out, that’s fair game enough.)

Shrug. Not too worried about it. I’m pretty sure Jesus was able to look after His mother’s salvation after He was born, seeing as how He was doing something about it from the first moment her mother conceived her.

 

[Evan]

There is a big difference between the baptism you receive and the immaculate conception.

In your baptism, original sin is cleared from your soul, but the effects remain (concupiscence… a tendency to sin).

In the IC, not only is original sin not present, since it was never there, there is no effects left on the soul. Mary is an example of man in his original innocence, total free to choose good or evil without the concupiscence remaining after the removal of original sin.

You, being baptized, are an example of man in a state of forgiveness.

 

[TimothyH]

There is a big difference between the baptism you receive and the immaculate conception.

In your baptism, original sin is cleared from your soul, but the effects remain (concupiscence… a tendency to sin).

In the IC, not only is original sin not present, since it was never there, there is no effects left on the soul. Mary is an example of man in his original innocence, total free to choose good or evil without the concupiscence remaining after the removal of original sin.

You, being baptized, are an example of man in a state of forgiveness.

Evan is exactly correct.

Mary was given a singular grace from God which we have not been given. Mary was given the fullness of grace and her will was perfectly conformed to God’s will. Unlike Mary, we have a will which seeks to serve itself rather than God.

It’s not just about sin. It’s about the tendancy to sin - concupiscence - and Mary’s reception of the fullness of God’s grace.

-Tim-