The Immaculate Conception

[Wesley7]

I think I understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Is it important to Catholics? . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think I understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Is it important to Catholics? . .

Well, yes, it is. That Mary was conceived without sin is a revealed dogmatic truth. All truth is important. Because Mary is the mother of Jesus, who SHE is also has a direct impact on who HE is, therefore as is always with Mary, a Marian truth is also a Christological truth.

 

[5Loaves]

I think I understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Is it important to Catholics? . .

As you know from other threads Eastern Catholics and the Latin Church have a different understanding of Original Sin and therefore a different understanding of Mary’s conception.

 

[Little_One0307]

Well, yes, it is. That Mary was conceived without sin is a revealed dogmatic truth. All truth is important. Because Mary is the mother of Jesus, who SHE is also has a direct impact on who HE is, therefore as is always with Mary, a Marian truth is also a Christological truth.

I could not have said it any better. I concur.

God bless.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Tangentially related to this topic is the comment of Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. He says, “Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”

However, he also says this (emphasis mine):The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter.* In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it**; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.*SOURCE HERE.

.

 

[jrgiancola]

As an Orthodox Christian, simply stated, we believe that Mary was NOT conceived immaculately, but that when she accepted God’s invitation to be the mother of Jesus, she was instantly cleansed of all original sin. As a former Catholic, I have always believed in the immaculate conception. However, I now doubt that the RCC correctly and fully revealed Mary’s messages from Lourdes and from Fatima. Other catholic sects question the same thing. Visit the we site: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com to view other opinions.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmmm, I am wondering if there are any Orthodox who believe that the Saints of old are “all” free from any actual sin. I mean, there is a class of saint that is free from all sin, and then another that is not?
“Here” we see exhibit #1, Mary – a non mentally impaired ADULT – who has no actual sin according to the Orthodox view; ever.

So, I would think that alone puts Mary in a class by herself – it is shallow to argue that the immaculate conception would put her into a class of her own – she’s already in it!

And the orthodox who don’t understand original sin as the latins do, really can’t argue about a doctrine they don’t understand as applying to anyone, as suddenly applying only to Mary. It’s non-sensical tail chasing, or cat herding, and definitely hair splitting. (Hair raising… for sure!).

 

[jrgiancola]

Orthodoxy rejected the “then theory” of the Immaculate Conception as far back as the ninth century. It was one of the many reasons that led to the 1054 schism.

Orthodoxy views the original sin, which we call the “ancestral sin,” as Adam and Eve doing, in essence, what Lucifer and his fallen angels did: attempting to set themselves up as “gods,” no longer needing God. (This is my own paraphrase of the Orthodox belief and not a direct quote; it is my understanding of the church’s teaching). It was mans putting his pride before God’s command, fueled, of course, by the temptations of satan. I don’t see where our concept of ancestral sin differs much from the catholic concept of original sin.

I personally do not really know if Mary was or was not conceived immaculately. I could believe it; I did for 40 years. It is not a repulsive doctrine to me.

Yet, there is no proof of this, and I have always had a problem with the RCC’s official account of the appearance at Lourdes.

For me, a papal declaration of her immaculate conception means nothing.

As for the story, it is reported that Mary had Bernadette wash her face with mud and eat the weeds growing in the grotto. I have always found that difficult to believe. I can not see our Lady asking her beloved Bernadette to do such a self-effacing, almost ascetic act. That part of the story reeks of catholicism, rather than of Maryianism.

I’ve always had the same problem with the official story that the Lady of Fatima encouraged the three children to wear self-immolating belts that cut into their bodies in order to suffer for the conversion of sinners. I find that too difficult to believe that Our Lady would ask the children to do that. Again, this part of the story reeks of catholicism rather than from Mary.

Needless to say, my distrust of the bureaucrats in the vatican played a great part in my leaving the RCC. I don’t know what to believe from the vatican regarding Lourdes, Fatima or anything else.

Regardless, I don’t see that it matters whether Mary was or was not conceived immaculately. The important point is that she was free from all sin when she conceived Jesus, the Son of God. She would have to be since God could not be conceived in the womb of a sinful woman.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I personally do not really know if Mary was or was not conceived immaculately. … Yet, there is no proof of this

What are some examples of “proofs” of some Orthodox doctrines?

 

[jrgiancola]

The Orthodox Doctrines are taken directly from the church fathers. They rejected the filioque as contrary to the Councils of Nicea/Constantinople and Ephesus; they rejected the doctrine of purgatory; the immaculate conception; the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven and the infallibility of the pope. Specifically, what orthodox doctrines are you speaking of? I’m not aware of any specific doctrines the orthodox church itself spontaneously promulgated.

The pope declared Mary the Immaculate Conception in 1854; all catholics were then obliged to believe it. Doesn’t it seem somewhat redundant that the Mother of God would come to earth to declare it herself? I believe she came to Lourdes, but to give mankind the gift of the healing spring. I also believe she came to Fatima; but I don’t believe the RCC revealed the true third secret.

Unfortunately for me, I will never really know if it was Mary or the RCC that uttered the words: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Regardless, I love Mary as my own Mother and consider her the Mother of us all. In our church service, which is the Divine Liturgy written by St. John Chrysostom, we invoke the intercession of the Holy Theotokos numerous times. Orthodoxy loves and reveres her. We just don’t go as far as the RCC.

What will you do if the RCC declares Mary the “co redemptrix?” The Epistles clearly state that there is one redeemer, one mediator between Our Father and man: Jesus Christ. He alone reconciled God to mankind. Will you believe a doctrine that indisputably contradicts the Bible itself? It’s one thing for a church not to be sola scriptura; the Orthodox church is not sola scriptura. But it’s an entirely different thing to adopt a doctrine which plainly contradicts the Bible. The Bible is the foundation of all Christian churches. No church can adopt a doctrine that clearly contradicts the Bible and remain a true Christian church. Just how far are you yourself willing to go?

 

[Jmd96]

What will you do if the RCC declares Mary the “co redemptrix?” The Epistles clearly state that there is one redeemer, one mediator between Our Father and man: Jesus Christ. He alone reconciled God to mankind. Will you believe a doctrine that indisputably contradicts the Bible itself? It’s one thing for a church not to be sola scriptura; the Orthodox church is not sola scriptura. But it’s an entirely different thing to adopt a doctrine which plainly contradicts the Bible. The Bible is the foundation of all Christian churches. No church can adopt a doctrine that clearly contradicts the Bible and remain a true Christian church. Just how far are you yourself willing to go?

That’s a common misunderstanding, here’s a quote regarding the title “Co-Redemtrix”:
When the Church invokes Mary under the title, “Coredemptrix”, she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb.10:10).
*

It is important to note that the prefix “co” in the title Coredemptrix does not mean “equal to” but rather “with”, coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary’s unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.

For what it’s worth, I’m opposed to this Marian dogma because:

1. It is incredibly easy to misunderstand
2. It doesn’t seem to clarify anything, just emphasizing things already agreed upon and emphasized in her other titles.

God bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The Orthodox Doctrines are taken directly from the church fathers. They rejected the filioque as contrary to the Councils of Nicea/Constantinople and Ephesus; they rejected the doctrine of purgatory; the immaculate conception; the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven and the infallibility of the pope. Specifically, what orthodox doctrines are you speaking of? I’m not aware of any specific doctrines the orthodox church itself spontaneously promulgated.

The pope declared Mary the Immaculate Conception in 1854; all catholics were then obliged to believe it. Doesn’t it seem somewhat redundant that the Mother of God would come to earth to declare it herself? I believe she came to Lourdes, but to give mankind the gift of the healing spring. I also believe she came to Fatima; but I don’t believe the RCC revealed the true third secret.

Unfortunately for me, I will never really know if it was Mary or the RCC that uttered the words: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Regardless, I love Mary as my own Mother and consider her the Mother of us all. In our church service, which is the Divine Liturgy written by St. John Chrysostom, we invoke the intercession of the Holy Theotokos numerous times. Orthodoxy loves and reveres her. We just don’t go as far as the RCC.

What will you do if the RCC declares Mary the “co redemptrix?” The Epistles clearly state that there is one redeemer, one mediator between Our Father and man: Jesus Christ. He alone reconciled God to mankind. Will you believe a doctrine that indisputably contradicts the Bible itself? It’s one thing for a church not to be sola scriptura; the Orthodox church is not sola scriptura. But it’s an entirely different thing to adopt a doctrine which plainly contradicts the Bible. The Bible is the foundation of all Christian churches. No church can adopt a doctrine that clearly contradicts the Bible and remain a true Christian church. Just how far are you yourself willing to go?

What half nonsense is this?: " The Epistles clearly state that there is one redeemer, one mediator between Our Father and man: Jesus Christ. He alone reconciled God to mankind"

St. Paul says of himself – 2Cori 11:6 For although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge: but in all things we have been made manifest to you.

And again, St Peter says of Paul: 2Pete 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood,** which the unlearned and unstable wrest**, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Not every scripture is a stumbling block for the unlearned; But St. Pauls epistles come with two warnings to the sound bite users. I am not interested in a pseudo, self proclaimed Orthodox viewpoint – I’m interested in full harmonization of the scriptures by the learned.

By the same epistles that you claim “one redeemer”, (CF: ) St. Paul also says we are “AMBASSADORS” – and the very purpose of an ambassador is to mediate. You seem to be adding words to the scriptures much like Luther – alone – did.

What does this say, in Acts? “Acts 7:35 This Moses, whom they refused, saying: Who hath appointed thee prince and judge? Him God sent to be prince and redeemer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the burning bush.”

Thus it is, that they rejected Moses as their redeemer, who prophesied that one like HIMSELF (a redeemer) would come and to him those disobedient in the desert would listen; If Moses were not a redeemer, nor would Christ be – for that is what Moses did for the people at God’s command. Moses is equivalent to the pope in the Old covenant, it is his authority – his chair – that Jesus took away from the Pharisees and handed to St. Peter and the college of bishops under him. Just as they would not listen to Moses, so now many refuse to listen to Peter who intercedes on their behalf.

Not only that, St. Paul tells us that we ought to pray for each other – and he himself does so numerous times.

Garbage in = garbage out. Please, Don’t rely on St. Paul’s writings unless you have more knowledge than sound bites about what he wrote. Ignorance is sheer folly around St. Paul’s writing and will be demonstrated to those who persist in error.
As Jesus said to St. Paul on the road, “Saul Saul, why do you persecute ME” – by persecuting the church, Saul was persecuting the ONE mediator between God and Man, Christ Jesus, in the flesh of his covenant. I say to you, there is ONE mediator, and I too am part of that mediation. “Only” is a Lutheran edit, not an Orthodox one.

1Timo 2:5 For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

Go write your own bible somewhere else; it won’t fool anyone around here.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Orthodox Doctrines are taken directly from the church fathers. They rejected the filioque as contrary to the Councils of Nicea/Constantinople and Ephesus; they rejected the doctrine of purgatory; the immaculate conception; the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven and the infallibility of the pope. Specifically, what orthodox doctrines are you speaking of?

I’m asking you. You suggested that there was no “proof” of the Immaculate Conception. So I assume you believe in Orthodoxy because all Orthodoxy’s doctrines have “proof.” So what constitutes proof? Above I see you appealing to ECFs and Councils. Is one of those the “proofs” Orthodoxy uses to determine doctrine? Because you can certainly find ECFs embracing Catholic doctrines that you have rejected as “unproven.”

 

[jrgiancola]

Huiou, I have NO idea what your point is. It seems that we both agree that there is one redeemer: Jesus. Otherwise, what in God’s name are you talking about?

 

[jrgiancola]

Marco, you are correct. The Orthodox Church kept what was true from the RCC, such as the seven sacraments, the trinity, and many of the core and key doctrines of Christianity, the majority of which were formulated by the church fathers. Of course, the trinity can NOT really be PROVEN, but the New Testament does seem to present God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, co-equal persons and most Christian churches have believed this for 2000 years. The Orthodox Church is not all that different from the RCC. But the RCC has added many additional dogmas and doctrines since before the end of the first millennium which Orthodoxy has rejected. I would just really like to know the honest truth: Did Our Lady actually state: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Franz Werfel wrote a great book, “The Song of Bernadette,” in which he stated that she did in fact utter these words. But he wrote the book after WWII and was really only reporting what the people of Lourdes believed at that time. No one was alive from the time of Bernadette except the Bouhouhorts boy who was healed at the grotto. And from the book, the boy was then an old man whose memory could not be relied upon. I would really, very much like to know the truth, but do not know where to find it, or if it is even discoverable at this point in time. And that saddens me…

 

[jrgiancola]

Marco, I missed your 2:32 am post quoting the Metropolitan. Just saw it now as I read some of the previous posts. This is an interesting quote and I’m glad you posted it, something I was not aware of. It’s nice to know my church gives me an option in the matter. That’s another reason I left the RCC: no options are given the believer. The attitude is, for the most part, believe the dogma or you’re a heretic. Thanks. God bless you.

 

[jrgiancola]

JMD, you are correct. The co-redemptrix doctrine would be very much misunderstood. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Applying the “slippery slope” concept, where might it lead in, let’s say, 500 years?

Will catholics view Mary as a goddess in the year 2511 for lack of understanding?

Here is something I’ve always contemplated:

At the time of Jesus’s birth, any child born outside of a marriage was considered illegitimate. Since Jesus was the son of God the Father, not Joseph, Mary was, in some way that is incomprehensible to me, the “spouse” (for lack of a better word) of God the Father. In a spiritual sense, in a fashion unknown or not understood by humanity, was she not “married” (again for lack of a better word) to God the Father? If not, would Jesus’s birth not have been “illegitimate” under the Mosaic law?

What would something akin to this kind of logic combined with the co-redemptrix doctrine create 500 years from now? Another Zeus and Hera merely with different names?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou, I have NO idea what your point is. It seems that we both agree that there is one redeemer: Jesus. Otherwise, what in God’s name are you talking about?

That’s fairly obvious. In God’s name I am talking about God’s word–not an edited version where “alone” is inserted in places that God didn’t put it.

There are things that Jesus did alone, such as tread the winepress of God’s wrath – and there are things that he did together; such as in the upper room he said “I will not drink from this cup again, until I drink it NEW with YOU in the kingdom of heaven.” So not even that cup is complete on the cross without us sharing in it – and that cup is the cup of redemption. PERIOD…

The title of co-redemptorix or mediatrix is easily misunderstood – but in it’s literal roots – it applies not only to Mary but to every single female in the body of Christ (his body the church); In a society that uses the masculine “man” to represent the man and wife; or even men and women; saying “mediatrix” or co-redemptorix is redundant and confusion is bound to happen. But that doesn’t mean the basic idea is wrong. Christ gave to the redemption of his people a unique but not lonely sacrifice. He gave us in the same sacrifice as he gave himself. The martyrdom of St. Peter is an excellent example of this sacrifice being physically extended to another in the image of Christ; and in Peter’s baptism of blood, there is undoubtedly a way for God to see the fulfillment of the OT sacrifices in the image of his son. For Jesus was not crucified upside down as most of the lambs at the temple were – but Peter was. He understood the figures of the old testament more than most do today.

There is not one “sola” mediator – there is “one” united mediator between God and man; The dogma is known as the communion of saints. There are also dogmas about purgatory, original sin, that can only be disagreed with by heresy.
As I said before, moses was equivalent to the Pope in the old testament – and his chair went to the pharisees in the time of Jesus, and was then taken away from them and given to St. Peter and his successors – the rocks from Abraham; the family of God. By denying the office of Peter in declaring what the true teaching is (if not the true act) you fall into the error of the Sadducees who neither understood the scriptures, nor the power of God – the God of the living communion of saints.

With regard to Mary, I can agree, only, that there is an over emphasis of French sentimentality in the usage of Language when calling mary “mediatrix of ALL graces”. I don’t condone the use of equivocal statements that are confusing to the less informed without qualification. St. Paul already has made a mess with his writing – there is no need to perpetuate the problem.

However, that being said – I see absolutely no logical reason that “Mary” would not have been able to say “I am the immaculate conception” if she had wanted to.
I don’t mind your expression of doubt – but I do mind your editing scripture.

Peace.

 

[thenobes]

HT,

I don’t know if this is hijacking the thread, but what graces do you believe Mary could not mediate?

With regard to Mary, I can agree, only, that there is an over emphasis of French sentimentality in the usage of Language when calling mary “mediatrix of ALL graces”. I don’t condone the use of equivocal statements that are confusing to the less informed without qualification. St. Paul already has made a mess with his writing – there is no need to perpetuate the problem.

peace
steve

 

[Huiou_Theou]

HT,

I don’t know if this is hijacking…
steve

The OP is “is it important to Catholics?”; so answering your question from the Catholic perspective is probably less hijacking than other choices…

Graces are two way exchanges – they act as both thank yous’ and pleases’.
The word “graces” (charis) is found for example in the word EU-charist.
The word means: “the Good gift”, and also “thanking well” – but there is a tendency to forget that it isn’t just God’s gift to us – but our response to him as well. Eucharst is a direct grace every time it is participated in, by definition.

When speaking about mediation – generally what is meant is a channel for grace to operate through. A way for a please or a thank you to occur. The Eucharist itself is not through Mary – directly – but only indirectly. She does not mediate the gift during its reception, every time, any more than the thank you that is given by the recipient. Mary is the immaculate conception, but she is not the whole body at once. Therefore, there is at least one Grace she does not mediate; a temporal gracing that occurs at diverse times.

Through Mary, Jesus came, and thus as a pathway at a point in time – Jesus and all he did came through her; This is astonishing in that God chose a single woman and not a plurality of women, or some other miraculous form – so there is little or nothing wrong in saying Mary is the mediator of all graces in the sense of that single point in time. However, it is understandable that many would be anxious that the Catholic is focusing ONLY on that point in time. They don’t realize we aren’t STUCK there. She herself is pointing toward the cross and resurrection which are at a different time; and although she participates and mediates in those events; she is no longer the sole channel through which these events happened. She is THE door through which Christ entered; A mother through womb he created a new birth.

BUT: In the final Judgment, Mary will not have the final say about who goes to heaven or hell; that isn’t her place. Her place is to become the adoptive mother of all whom Christ accepts into his family; but the actual transfer of the grace may not be through her in any particular instance. For example, Peter and the apostles sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel – so they might be the channel of any particular grace to a particular soul in heaven – exclusive of Mary. And Mary might be the channel of a different grace to that soul. Another subtle example, John the Apostle received Mary at the cross as his mother without Mary asking Jesus for it. She did not mediate her own place, but was graced directly to John.

There are many gifts, and they are apportioned according to faith and the will of God. Mary is unique in that she is the all-holy, completely graceful, pleasing and thankful ( ke-charito-menE) woman. She is the perfect please and thank you to God – THAT is the very meaning of her title “Fully Graced”. That perfection is what heaven is about – being in union with God; and Mary is the first-fruit of women (Blessed are you among women says the Holy Spirit through Elizabeth) to have that union.

But to be the first, the finest quality, is still not to be the Only. Nor is it to be the all consuming. Nor is it to be the totality.

God is to be the “all” in every thing … and it is only he who can complete the union with himself that his mother, our mothers, spiritual fathers, and brothers and sisters have begun in us. Mary is important, somewhat sadly too, in my opinion, because she is doctrinally important as a boast to Catholics. She is the “sole” boast of creation from the time of Adam to rise to God’s INTENDED level for all of us. Panangea.

Her primary importance is that she is the fullest sign of hope that *sin can be **totally *overcome by a mere human being. Hope itself is required for us to overcome evil. It is one of the three virtues that will remain even in Heaven. The devil has no boast over her, at all. That is the justice of her creation and simultaneously the example of the perfect mercy of God; so that justice and mercy may meet face to face.:: God does not require payment in full for every single Good he does from SOMEBODY on a cross, if not the sinner themselves.

She is also target practice for the devil, having now been made a boast in its fullness; FOR now there are many who have chosen to insult Mary and so insult Christ himself and his mercy out of immaturity, and rivalry – for it is the nature of the Devil to take what is good and try to use it to kill.

The problem is that the temptation to boast, “I could be Mary – she is just like me” is a powerful to many of us – even as the carefully spoken St. Paul recognized the temptation to BE THE CHRIST HIMSELF. Even St. Paul knew his thought was impossible but at least he was careful to say: (para) “If it were possible, I could wish to be cut of from Christ for the sake of my people…” remembering his true place in the scheme of things. Christ was cut off from his people, and by that cutting came into his glory rescuing them. Of course a boasting pharisee would want to be the Messiah – what true glory seeker wouldn’t! But it is a hollow boast, and one made only because his tribe only listens to boasting.

So, too, this Mary whom God has made is something to boast about. Yet at the same time, like her son, she can be made a temptation. She too is a sign of contradiction; that is her purpose. People will nay say her; they will nay say Christ; and they will nay say Peter. The devil’s insult of her isn’t because of her title bearing evil – rather it is of our weakness trying to limit God’s goodness.
Lord protect us from all anxiety.

AMEN.