Why aren't we all immaculately conceived?

[thenobes]

God gave us the command to honor our Mother and Father. What higher honor would there be than to separate her totally from the grips of the devil? Why would God settle for a lesser honor for His Mother?

2 other points:

So why didn’t God create Mary first, put Mary in Eden, and save us human beings the trouble of all this sin and suffering?

And what if her progeny subsequently fell? Another second Mary would be needed as Mother of God who would be granted this singular privilege again. So what would your argument be then? A continual string of Marys?

None of the answers you have proposed do anything to explain why the humanity of Jesus alone would not have contracted original sin. Seriously, let’s go into the realm of pure speculation and take the Immaculate Conception off the table – Mary’s humanity inherited original sin in her conception just like everyone else. But Jesus’ humanity didn’t inherit original sin in His conception. Why? Give me a rational answer.

When flesh is adfixed to divinity, sin cannot enter it: Divinity will not allow it. For all practical purposes Original Sin has been removed.

peace
steve

 

[po18guy]

Now you are contradicting yourself.

You misunderstood. I spoke of what she had accomplished up to the point of Gabriel’s visit.

First, you are making the mistake of confusing the two natures of Christ.

Nope. I made the mistake of not enunciating it clearly. You and I agree on the nature of our Lord.

because if it were necessary for Mary to have been without sin to carry Jesus in her womb, then it would have been necessary for Anna to have been without sin to carry Mary in her womb, and on and on all the way back to Eve, whom we know had sin of her own.

The Gospel according to Mike. This is your private opinion. Period.

But the claim is made that Mary did not sin her whole life even in an environment that was absolutely riddled with temptations and examples of sin. So why didn’t God create Mary first, put Mary in Eden, and save us human beings the trouble of all this sin and suffering?

Show, from scripture, where Mary sinned. You cannot.

I asked this question before: Do you think that God could have redeemed us without sending His Son to suffer and die for us?

God is all powerful - you know that. Your point?

None of the answers you have proposed do anything to explain why the humanity of Jesus alone would not have contracted original sin.

Is this because you refuse to understand? Is it because you came here with pre-conceived notions that the Catholic Church was right about the bible, but wrong about everything else? From your replies, I say “Yes”.

P.S.: Just FYI, I’m about to go on vacation for a week, so I might not be able to respond in a timely fashion.

You have been given multiple answers, multiple times over multiple weeks. You apparently disregarded all of it.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

I am praying for you before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

I am praying for you before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Did you quote this?
The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

And can you pray for me too?

 

[po18guy]

Did you quote this?
The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

And can you pray for me too?

I will pray for you with pleasure!

 

[marymary1975]

Therefore, second, according to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it was not necessary (and, as some people have stated here in this thread, neither does the Church teach that it was necessary) for Mary to have been completely sinless to have conceived and borne (or even raised, thanks to Joseph’s example) the sinless Son of God, because if it were necessary for Mary to have been without sin to carry Jesus in her womb, then it would have been necessary for Anna to have been without sin to carry Mary in her womb, and on and on all the way back to Eve, whom we know had sin of her own. So the necessity argument has long since evaporated. If Mary’s humanity could have been granted a perfect state from the moment of conception merely by divine fiat and without any regard to the sin-stained state of her mother, then so could Jesus’ humanity have been granted perfection without any regard to Mary’s state.

I asked this question before: Do you think that God could have redeemed us without sending His Son to suffer and die for us? That He could have just said to Adam and Eve, “Never mind that whole thing with the apple, it’s all water under the bridge”? Is God a divine masochist, choosing to suffer when he could have freely forgiven instead – and likewise a sadist for having us follow in His footsteps when He didn’t actually need to tread in those steps Himself?

None of the answers you have proposed do anything to explain why the humanity of Jesus alone would not have contracted original sin. Seriously, let’s go into the realm of pure speculation and take the Immaculate Conception off the table – Mary’s humanity inherited original sin in her conception just like everyone else. But Jesus’ humanity didn’t inherit original sin in His conception. Why? Give me a rational answer.

–Mike

Exactly, for all that you stated is the reason why this dogma is called The Mistery of the Immaculate Conception. There are many things in religion that are bigger than our brain therefore we cannot understand no matter how hard we try. The immaculate conception is one of those misteries.

Many theologist, way before Pius IX ,debated exactly on the same issues you are exposing, nobody could come up with an answer. That is why it took a supernatural event with no scientific explanation – the Virgin Mary appearing to a tiny little girl who couldn’t even learn the lord’s prayer and telling her “I am the immaculate conception” – for theologist to stop trying to understand something that was bigger than their brains and for the Pope to proclaim the dogma of the immaculate conception on the basis of the Virgin Mary’s own words.

 

[mpartyka]

God gave us the command to honor our Mother and Father. What higher honor would there be than to separate her totally from the grips of the devil? Why would God settle for a lesser honor for His Mother?

I’ve always been stymied by the fact that, to Catholics, being the Mother of God isn’t in and of itself enough to make Mary honored above all other women in history. Instead God must commit an act of divine nepotism and grant to Mary still another singular and wholly undeserved privilege – that of total freedom from original sin. But again, it begs the question (or maybe that’s not the right phrase, but oh well), why doesn’t God grant us all this peculiar grace that He bestowed upon Mary? If it’s simply because she’s Jesus’ Mother, and we’re not, then God is guilty of being a respecter of persons. If it’s a matter of necessity, that’s another thing – but it’s already been well-established that necessity is not an issue here, as it is demonstrated, if you accept the Immaculate Conception, that God could have prevented Jesus’ humanity from contracting original sin by the same fiat by which He prevented Mary’s humanity from contracting it.

And what if her progeny subsequently fell? Another second Mary would be needed as Mother of God who would be granted this singular privilege again. So what would your argument be then? A continual string of Marys?

You may as well ask, “What if Eve had resisted so that Adam and Eve did not fall, but their progeny after them fell?” I don’t know about you, but I had always thought that the purpose of the test in Eden was to establish once and for all which way humanity would go. If Adam and Eve had resisted, then so would all of their progeny. Likewise, because Adam and Eve fell, we carry not only the physical effects but also the guilt of original sin, because their fall under ideal conditions indicates that we, too, would have fallen under the same ideal conditions, and so there’s no use complaining that we are being unjustly blamed for the sin of Adam and Eve since we would have committed the same sin in their shoes.

When flesh is adfixed to divinity, sin cannot enter it: Divinity will not allow it. For all practical purposes Original Sin has been removed.

Then you agree the Immaculate Conception was not necessary, as you assert that Jesus’ divinity was sufficient to prevent Him from contracting original sin.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Show, from scripture, where Mary sinned. You cannot.

John Chrysostom would argue otherwise:

…even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. “For while He yet talked to the people,” it is said, “one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, “While He yet talked to the people;” as if he should say, “What, was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?”

And what was it they wished to say? For if it were touching the doctrines of the truth, they ought to have propounded these things publicly, and stated them before all, that the rest also might have the benefit: but if about other matters that concerned themselves, they ought not to have been so urgent. For if He suffered not the burial of a father, lest the attendance on Him should be interrupted, much less ought they to have stopped His discourse to the people, for things that were of no importance. Whence it is clear, that nothing but vainglory led them to do this; which John too declares, by saying, “Neither did His brethren believe on Him;” and some sayings too of theirs he reports, full of great folly; telling us that they were for dragging Him to Jerusalem, for no other purpose, but that they themselves might reap glory from His miracles. “For if thou do these things,” it is said, “show Thyself to the world. For there is no man that doeth anything in secret, and seeketh himself to be manifest;” when also He Himself rebuked them, attributing it to their carnal mind. That is, because the Jews were reproaching Him, and saying, “Is not this the carpenter’s son, whose father and mother we know? And His brethren, are not they with us?” they, willing to throw off the disparagement caused by His birth, were calling Him to the display of His miracles.

For this cause He quite repels them, being minded to heal their infirmity; since surely, had it been His will to deny His mother, He would have denied her then, when the Jews were reproaching Him. But as it is, we see that He takes so great care of her, as even at the very cross to commit her to the disciple whom He loved most of all, and to give him a great charge concerning her. But now He doth not so, out of care for her, and for His brethren. I mean, because their regard for Him was as towards a mere man, and they were vainglorious, He casts out the disease, not insulting, but correcting them. But do thou, I pray, examine not the words only, which contain a moderate reproof, but also the unbecoming conduct of His brethren, and the boldness wherewith they had been bold and who was the person reproving it, no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God; and with what purpose He reproved; that it was not with intent to drive them to perplexity, but to deliver them from the most tyrannical passion and to lead them on by little and little to the right idea concerning Himself, and to convince her that He was not her Son only, but also her Lord: so wilt thou perceive that the reproof is in the highest degree both becoming Him and profitable to her, and withal having in it much gentleness…

Having then said these words, “He came out of the house.” Seest thou, how He both rebuked them, and did what they desired? Which He did also at the marriage. For there too He at once reproved her asking unseasonably, and nevertheless did not gainsay her; by the former correcting her weakness, by the latter showing His kindly feeling toward His mother. So likewise on this occasion too, He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother, even though her request was unseasonable.

–Homily XLIV on the Gospel of Matthew

That’s why I said earlier that by the 4th century it hadn’t even been established that Mary was without sin, much less immaculately conceived.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

With regard to the question, “How would a Protestant who doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception respond when asked how Jesus’ humanity was preserved from contracting original sin?” I actually hinted at the answer in a couple of prior posts:

…Adam and Eve were only “preserved” from sin in the sense that there was no original sin for them to contract in their creation. They had to actually commit a sin to contract sin. And according to the CCC, this sin that they contract would be passed down by propogation to their progeny, and I would expect this would hold true 100% of the time unless something different happened to throw off the natural course of propogation.

…do you think that God can willy-nilly break the rule that He Himself established as to the transmission of original sin, or is it possible that God is constrained by His own character so as not to break the natural chain of transmission of original sin unless He also breaks the natural chain of propogation of human life?

How is human life naturally propogated? By sexual intercourse. So it stands to reason that everyone who is conceived in the usual way – through sexual intercourse – is bound to contract original sin.

Hence, one famous Protestant writer wrote, “Even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place…without sin. For he had not been born of adultery or fornication, but of lawful wedlock, who said, ‘Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin my mother brought me forth.’ For, knowing himself to have been conceived in iniquities, he groaned for having been born in sin, because the tree bears in its branch the vicious humour which it has drawn from its root.” (Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the Angli)

How was Mary conceived? Naturally – i.e., by sexual intercourse. Which means she contracted original sin, just like anyone else who was ever conceived naturally, like you or me.

So why didn’t Jesus contract original sin? Because He wasn’t conceived naturally.

“Truly foreign to this nativity,” wrote a second famous Protestant writer, “is that which we read of all others, ‘no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth.’ Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered.” (1st Sermon on the Nativity) How so? Because, again according to this Protestant writer, “By a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity…without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred. Her unsullied virginity knew no lust when it ministered the substance. The Lord took from His mother our nature, not our fault.” (2nd Sermon on the Nativity) Was it really necessary that Jesus be born by this “new nativity” in order to be free from original sin? Absolutely, for the writer says, “That one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression…was not permitted by natural generation…because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, ‘Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed?’” (8th Sermon on the Nativity)

So there you have it. Oh, by the way, these two famous Protestant writers? Pope Gregory the Great and Pope Leo the Great.

When I was young, and someone told me the gospel for the first time, it went kind of like this: “Adam and Eve sinned, and because they sinned, we all inherit original sin from Adam, and that’s why we are sinners. But Jesus, the Son of God, came down from heaven and was born of a virgin” – at which point my young brain said, “Born of a virgin. Why?” – “and lived a life without sin” – at which point my young brain said, “Oh, that’s why. Because by being born of a virgin, he didn’t inherit original sin and become a sinner from the get-go. Which means original sin must be something passed down from father to child. Sure, that makes sense.” And that’s exactly what the Church taught for centuries – original sin was passed down from Adam because Adam’s seed carried the taint of original sin in it, and his sons’ seed in turn carried original sin down to the next generation, and so on, and so on, fathers passing original sin down to their children via their seed, generation after generation, until finally a child is conceived without male seed. That child was Jesus, and because he was conceived miraculously, apart from sexual intercourse, and without male seed, he alone was free from original sin.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

In summary, this is why the dogma of the Immaculate Conception ultimately makes no sense to me: It was God who made Adam and Eve such that they would, if they fell, transmit original sin to their progeny (who would transmit it to their progeny in turn, and so on) via the natural process of creating children, which is the transmission of male seed via sexual intercourse. And Mary’s humanity was created in the exact same way that your and my humanity was created: the transmission of male seed via sexual intercourse. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that according to the rules that God Himself set up and had no reason whatsoever to break on account of necessity, Mary inherited original sin just like anyone else who had been conceived in the natural way – it was inescapable for her, just like it was for you and me. Jesus, on the other hand, would reasonably be free from original sin on account of his having been conceived supernaturally – i.e., by the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than by the transmission of male seed through sexual intercourse. He wasn’t conceived in the usual way, thus He and He alone would be free from original sin. His unique and supernatural conception is, in a way, the exception that proves the rule that original sin is inherited by all who are conceived in the natural way, bar none – not even Mary is exempt from the rule. She didn’t need to be, so she wasn’t – which is much more logical and rational than all this talk of, “God could do it, so he did it,” don’t you think? And this view preserves the integrity of God in that we cannot say, “God is unjust for holding back from us what he did for Mary.” Instead, we can take comfort that God is indeed just, and therefore Mary was born under the same constraints and had to play by the same rules as the rest of us. And isn’t it a blessing to know that even though she was just like us in every way, God nevertheless gifted her with bearing and raising His Son? If God can do something as miraculous and breathtaking like that through a woman who was just as stained by original sin (and maybe even actual sins) as we are, then even though none of us will ever be so blessed as to bear and raise the Son of God, what wonderful and miraculous things might God yet do through us?

–Mike

 

[PJM]

[QOTE]Originally Posted by Big Dummy
Why doesn’t God prevent all of us from contracting the stain of original sin as He did with Mary?

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see this question answered. If it was, please summarize.

Thanks
bd

I replied earlier but ya missed it. BUT it’s a great question so I’ll try again.

***It has to do with two basic issues:

God’s Nature

Why God Created humanity; and precisely why did God Create us exactly as he did?***

**Isaiah 43: 7-11 **"every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."Bring forth the people who are blind, yet have eyes, who are deaf, yet have ears! Let all the nations gather together, and let the peoples assemble. Who among them can declare this, and show us the former things? Let them bring their witnesses to justify them, and let them hear and say, It is true. “You are my witnesses,” says the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.” AND Verse 21: “the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

Consider that the Universe as Created by God consist of BILLIONS od stars and planes; each as big or larger than planet earh. Yet ONLY ONE; planet earth can sustain life. WHY?

Consider further that on planet earth thre are hundreds of thousands of living things; BUT ONLY ONE; humanity has the ability to know, love, and serve God becaue God gives each and every human person a mind, a intellect, a freewill to direct there eternal soul. WHY?

**Exod.34:14 **"(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),"

There friend is the answer you seek. Certainly God COULD HAVE chosen another way. BUT any other way would have been opposed to God’s Perfect, Just and Fair Nature.

After God Created the Universe he saw that “It was GOOD.” [Gen. Chapter 1] God desired to share this GOODNESS so He Created Humanity is such a way as humanity could freely choose to either Know, Love and Serve Him; OR just as freely choose NOT to know, love and serve Him.

This ability to freely choose conforms to God’s Perfect Love. Perfect Love SEEKS Perfect love in return. Were humanity NOT feeely able to choose; our returned love to and for God would be imperfect.

Now, you ask how does Original sin tie into this? Orgianl sin is an (name removed by moderator)erfection that can lead to [breed]other imperfections. It is this fact that can perfect our relationship with God.

The other reason in Divine Justice is that Adam and Eve were created Perfectly without Sin; BUT choose sin freely. Because they chose imperfection [sin] and we are molded / modeled after them; we too must share in this struggle to PROVE our love of God. It is Divine Jutice in action.

Could it have been different? Sure. But then God’s Justice would NOT have been served.

Hope this helps?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[mpartyka]

Why doesn’t God prevent all of us from contracting the stain of original sin as He did with Mary?

I don’t think you really answered the question at hand, which was why God preserved Mary free from original sin, but not the rest of us. If anything, you’ve just argued why God ought not to have preserved Mary free from original sin, as (if I’m interpreting your argument correctly) the absence of original sin from her conception precluded her from sharing in our common struggle to prove our love of God.

–Mike

 

[po18guy]

Enough is enough! For the sake of those with both the ability and desire to learn; those with no anti-Catholic agenda; those who are not actively performing the task which the devil himself fears, I present the introduction of the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the immaculate conception:

In the Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus” of December 8, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin” (Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, 10th ed., n. 1641). The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis, carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

This positively and completely destroys the fallacious assertion that either: all of mankind must be immaculately conceived, or that none of us is. IMO, that claim is absurd, and judges the Lord guilty of a man-made crime (“respecter of persons”).

I found that posting in this thread was unusually fatiguing, frustrating and upsetting. During a Rosary, I remembered that even the devil and his demons will have no part in demeaning the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, what is evil to do then? If I were the devil, I would dupe apparently well-meaning men into doing this vile work. If one simply lacks the faith to believe in the doctrine, that is one thing. But, to launch both general and ad hominem attacks is quite another matter.

Here is a link to the entire article:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception

 

[mpartyka]

…I present the introduction of the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the immaculate conception…This positively and completely destroys the fallacious assertion that either: all of mankind must be immaculately conceived, or that none of us is.

That portion of the article really does nothing at all to address the issue. All it basically says is that a human being is not really and truly a person liable to original sin until the human being’s soul has been created and joined to the human body that has been conceived. So, whenever this joining of soul and body occurs, be it at the moment of bodily conception or sometime afterward, that is the moment at which the original sin which lies latent in the body infects the soul – I do recall you agreed that this model was correct: original sin resides in the flesh and is communicated to the soul – and it is at this point that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary’s soul was preserved from this infection.

So let’s say that Mary’s “animation” took place a month – I’m just choosing this period of time arbitrarily – after her body was first conceived. Therefore, original sin lay dormant in her developing body for a month, and then God created Mary’s soul and attached in to her body, and at that moment He prevented the original sin in her body from infecting her soul. I’m assuming He also cleansed Mary’s body of original sin at that time, too. Is concupiscense, however, a stain that resides only in the soul, or on the body, also? It has to be in both the body and the soul, doesn’t it? So even if Mary were preserved from all stain of original sin as regards her soul, then according to the “animation” model (as opposed to the “conception” model) of the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s body would have received the stain of original sin just as our post-baptism bodies still carry the stain of original sin, and I don’t think that’s the impression that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is intended to convey, do you?

But in any case, the original question still stands. If God was able to reach into Mary’s “animation” (rather than her conception) and prevent her from contracting original sin, then God is obviously able to do the same for any person conceived in the natural way, as the article affirms Mary was – the article really goes out of its way, in fact, to say that there was no difference whatsoever between Mary’s conception and any of ours. Yet for Mary alone, God reached in at the time of “animation” and said, “In this singular case, I will prevent the transmission of original sin from the body to the soul.” Why does He do this for Mary and not for us?

In a nutshell, the only thing that portion of the article teaches us is that what is called “The Immaculate Conception” might be more accurately called “The Immaculate Animation.” (And I’m curious to know what impact this paradigm of “conception first, animation later” might have on the Church’s teaching on abortion. I was under the impression that abortion was wrong because the Church teaches human life begins at conception, but under the “conception, then animation” model, this would not technically be true, thus giving an opening to pro-choice dissenters.)

–Mike

P.S.: I did read through the article in its entirety, and I saw that it agrees with what I said earlier concerning Jesus’ supernatural conception: “Our Lord, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, was, by virtue of his miraculous conception, ipso facto free from the taint of original sin (Livius, op. cit., 249).”