C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
I don’t think anybody really answered your question, which is kind of a shame because I wouldn’t mind knowing the answer too.
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
Our very nature was forever altered at the fall from grace. God decided not to restore us to our pre-fall grace, but rather to redeem us by the Blood of Christ.
Let’s look at this rather abstractly: God is eternally present and time does not apply to Him. All things, all times, all persons, all events are present to him simultaneously. So, if we want God to re-make the human race without sin once more, what we are asking is for God to re-create His own Presence. Doesn’t make sense to me. He had a better plan, which is to send His Son to save us from our sins. Why did He do that? Let’s ask Him on that fine day.
The Lord knows that if he “re-booted” the human race and conceived each of us without sin, that we would fall again and again, just as our first parents did. The whole thing would be a waste of eternity, so to speak.
Now, if you are talking about Mary, well, God can create and choose whomever He wants to be the mother of His human nature. I am betting that that, since sin and perfection cannot exist in one body, He preserved Mary from all sin. How can you pour pure blood out of a dirty cup?
Much of this line of thought is hypothetical and the questions it raises can only be rhetorical in nature.
M
mpartyka
Guest
But couldn’t God have prevented Mary from ever committing an actual sin without ridding her of original sin? Or does having original sin necessarily mean that you will commit actual sin?
Also, it’s clear that we are to honor our parents, but we aren’t supposed to obey them if they tell us to sin. God’s commands take priority over our parents’ commands, so it’s not a Catch-22 if our parents want us to do something against the will of God. Thus, if Mary had asked Jesus to do something he ought not to do, He would have obeyed God and not her and remained sinless Himself. I mean, seriously, if you make that argument, then you have to also argue that Joseph must have been immaculately conceived, too, because Jesus was under Joseph’s parental guidance for at least 12 years.
Exactly. Which is why it’s strange to me that she alone was preserved free from original sin. She deserved to be kept from contracting original sin just as much as you and I do, which is not at all. So why did she get immunized and not us? If you say, “Because of what she was going to do,” then I return to my previous question: If Mary could have been immunized against original sin at conception and spent 9 months in Anna’s womb – a womb stained with original sin – without picking up the stain, then why did Jesus need Mary to be free from sin from conception given that He could have been preserved free from original sin in that same way?
But that’s just it – in Mary’s case, God did change the rules in the middle of the game, but only for her and not for all of us. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense.
Side question: Is that why a lot of Catholics prefer to interact with Mary than with God? Because there’s nothing about her that seems threatening, like discipline and justice and judgment? (I just find it interesting that in a Rosary, ten prayers are made to Mary for every one made to God. You would think it would be the other way around.)
Sure, but then each of us would have the chance to stand or fall on our own rather than be condemned and headed toward sin from the get-go, right? How is a world in which everyone starts out pure not a better world (and more pleasing to God) than one in which everyone starts out doomed and inclined to sin?
But again, the same thing would have to apply to Anna, and Anna’s mom, and so on all the way back to Eve, wouldn’t it? If a child can acquire original sin by taking on the flesh of the mother (which all children, including Jesus when he was in Mary’s womb, do), then if you make the argument that Mary had to be free from sin to make Jesus free from sin, you have to make the same argument about all the moms in Mary’s lineage all the way back to Eve…and I would think the argument would have to break down at Eve, right, because I’ve never heard anywhere that Eve was ever completely cleansed of original sin?
–Mike
po18guy
Well-known member
Original sin is the foundation for all sin. It makes sin not only possible, but unavoidable. Original sin forever changed our substance from perfect to flawed. Without original sin, we would all be like Adam and Eve before the fall. Were we free from original sin, it would have rendered Christ’s sacrifice unneeded.
You have a valid point, which occurred to me after I posted. No one is alleging that Joseph was sinless. However, we do know that he was a “righteous” or “upright” man.
We know that Jesus was able to choose His own mother. This in itself is so unusual and so unprecedented that certainly other unusual and unprecedented facts are involved, wouldn’t you say? However, Jesus and His mother had a bond, from the beginning. They were together for His entire life - from virgin womb to virgin tomb. Mary was at the annunciation and at the cross. If she was sinful, their house would be divided against itself.
The rules remained the same. God made an exception to the rules.
This just came up in another thread. Let’s dissect just a little here: Hail, Mary, full of grace (from Whom?), the Lord is with thee. Blessed (by Whom?) art thou amongst women and Blessed (by Whom?) is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray (to Whom?) for us sinners now and at the hour of death" Interestingly, there are seven explicit or implicit references to the Lord in each prayer.
Please know that one need never have a devotion to Mary, of any type. One need never pray a single Rosary of Hail, Mary to be in good standing. These are devotions which are permitted by the Church, but are in no way required. Why do many of us practice them? They draw us closer to God, deepening our faith, knowledge and understanding of Him. Like the Incarnation, Mary is involved, but it’s about Jesus.
As to the Rosary, it is the prayer of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Look at the mysteries that are contemplated: the Joyful Mysteries of the: Annunciation, visitation to Elizabeth, Birth of Christ, Jesus’ presentation in the temple and His being found in the temple. The Luminous Mysteries of: His Baptism, the wedding feast at Cana, the proclamation of the Kingdom, the Transfiguration and the institution of the Holy Eucharist. The Sorrowful Mysteries of: His Passion, scourging at the pillar, crowning with thorns, way of the cross and his crucifixion and death. The Glorious Mysteries of: His Resurrection, Ascension, the descent of the Holy Spirit, the assumption of Mary and her crowning in heaven. Alll are directly from the Gospel - there is scriptural support for the assumption and crowning of Mary, as well. This is important: The bible is incomplete, and tells us so in many places (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and others)
The Rosary is contemplative prayer, which is not well known outside of Catholic/Orthodox Churches. As you pray, the verbal prayers are not so important as the Divine Mysteries which you contemplate as you pray aloud. It is not the number or type of prayers that specifically bring graces, but the truth of the life of Christ which you ponder, as Mary pondered so many things in her heart.
As to her current role, look at it this way: The goal is Jesus. Mary was chosen to bring His human nature to us. After that, her role is like that of John the Baptist: “He must increase, I must decrease”. Jesus Himself placed the Apostles between Himself and the believers. Their goal was to lead others to the Truth. Same with Mary. They probably won’t admit it, but bible Churches have their devotion to Paul. (continued)
po18guy
Well-known member
(continuation) Those who rely solely on the bible are also relying on the words and writing of other men to lead them to Christ. Why don’t they just set the bible aside and pray directly to Jesus? After all, our Lord never said that we had to use writing to come to Him.
Ah, but the bible is a great help. So were the Apostles a great help. So is the local pastor a great help. And, so also is Mary a great help. All call us closer to Christ, while taking absolutely nothing away form Him. If you listen to your pastor, does that mean that you listen less to Christ? No! It is not a zero sum game, not an either-or situation, but a both-and situation.
Ah, but the bible is a great help. So were the Apostles a great help. So is the local pastor a great help. And, so also is Mary a great help. All call us closer to Christ, while taking absolutely nothing away form Him. If you listen to your pastor, does that mean that you listen less to Christ? No! It is not a zero sum game, not an either-or situation, but a both-and situation.
Your question seems to me more a matter of the reasoning behind God’s covenant with man. God is love. He is the Source of all love. We were made to be perfectly happy with Him for all eternity, but sin intervened. Christ is the way back to God for all mankind. However, love is a choice - an exercise of free will, which is a gift from God. God loves us so unreservedly that He gave us the ability to reject Him. Love is true when it is an exercise of the free will. Love is not forced, and God, by His actions, does not wish to force His will upon us. We would be simple robots then, and our love would be worthless.
We are products of the leaven of Adam and Eve. Just as a little yeast leavens all of the dough, a little original sin leavens (stains) the entire batch of humanity. A poor analogy, but Mary, who provided Jesus’ human nature, is like a little dough set aside without the leavening of sin. Jesus is Mary’s leavening. Sin is ours.
P
PJM
Guest
Original Sin is the latent effects of the ORGINIAL sin of Adam and Eve. It is the right application of Divine Justice.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Well, technically sin was possible before original sin came into existence, so it would still be possible for us to sin even if we weren’t infected by original sin. It’s just that we wouldn’t be inclined to sin from birth. We’d be in the same position as Adam and Eve were before the Fall: we could choose whether or not to sin. (Would we sin? I think we would, because Adam and Eve chose to sin in a perfect world, whereas their descendants would be making the same choice in a fallen, sin-stained world. Their descendants would have the deck stacked against them externally, if not internally. Which is another issue I have with Mary’s sinlessness – if Mary was in the same state as Eve before the Fall, but with the odds stacked against her on account of living in a fallen, sin-stained world, then how could Mary have lived her whole life without sin in a fallen world whereas Eve couldn’t live her whole life without sin in a perfect world? I don’t think it can be argued that Mary was a better person than Eve was before the Fall, can it? If that were true, then why didn’t God create Mary first and put her in Eden instead of Eve? That way the human race would never have fallen!)
But Adam and Eve and everyone else who did sin during their lives would still have needed Christ’s sacrifice to redeem them. And even those who would not sin during their earthly lives would still have needed Christ’s sacrifice for their immunizations from original sin (just as Mary needed Christ’s sacrifice in order to be immaculately conceived herself). So Christ’s sacrifice would still have been needed in any case.
So with regard to Mary’s actual conduct, all that was necessary (with regard to Jesus’ upbringing, anyway) was for her to be “righteous” or “upright,” too, correct?
But right after the annunciation, Mary went to see Elizabeth, at which point the stained John the Baptist lept in her womb, and the stained Elizabeth uttered prophecy. Likewise, at the cross Jesus sent Mary to live in the house of the stained apostle John (who was also at the cross). I really don’t think the stain of sin matters that much to God when it comes to how He can use people.
Exactly – God made an exception for her, but not for the rest of us. That’s my point. If the rules of nature can be indiscriminately broken by God (even though God himself is the one who set up the rules in the first place), one would think they would be broken in such a way as to maximize the potential for righteousness on earth rather than maximize the potential for sinfulness on earth.
But (1) Adam and Eve had a choice, and they weren’t burdened with original sin when they made it; and (2) Mary, though immaculately conceived, still had to choose at every point in her life whether or not to sin, right? So it doesn’t seem like there’s anything mutually exclusive about having a choice whether to love God or not and being free from original sin like Mary was (or like Adam and Eve originally were when they were created).
One other point: “God, by His actions, does not wish to force His will upon us.” Yet God had Mary immaculately conceived without her consent, right? How was that not forcing His will on Mary, at least in that one instance? Granted, nobody in their right mind would turn down such a gift, I would think, but if we’re talking about not having a choice, Mary certainly didn’t have a choice on this occasion. Nor do the rest of us have a choice when it comes to being stained with original sin. But at least with regard to our being stained with original sin, each of us can look back to Eden and say, “You know what? Adam and Eve were a perfect man and woman in a perfect world, and they still sinned. I couldn’t have been any more perfect than them, which means I would have sinned, too, if I were in their shoes. So I really can’t complain about being stained with original sin, because if I had been given the choice, I would have opted to sin, too, and I’d be in the same boat as them anyway.” Which means that unless you’re wanting to argue that Mary would not have fallen in Eden, which in turn means that God put the wrong woman in Eden, I still don’t see how Mary deserves to have been freed from the burden of original sin while every other human being who has ever lived (except Jesus, of course) has had to be burdened by it. If Mary’s immaculate conception were necessary to bring a sinless Savior into the world, that would be one thing, but Mary’s immaculate conception itself establishes that a sinless mother isn’t required to preserve a child free from original sin, so that argument is out.
That still doesn’t explain why Mary was set aside and the rest of us weren’t.
–Mike
M
Matorin
Guest
If you are going to use the yeast analogy, again why not move it up a spot to Jesus? If God is able to do it with Mary as you contend why not with Jesus directly?
I apologize if I “shotgunned” you, I can list out questions in a row if that makes it easier to answer, as you seem to have no problem answering multiple questions from others.
I apologize if I “shotgunned” you, I can list out questions in a row if that makes it easier to answer, as you seem to have no problem answering multiple questions from others.
- If Jesus required his mother to be free from sin so his physical body would not have the stain, why would Mary not have had her mother/father to be free from sin so her physical body would not have the stain? If you say God just did it for Mary as an exception, why would God not just do it for Jesus if the parent (Mary’s in this case) didn’t need to be free from original sin?
- Slightly off topic, but something I see as a logical result from all this: stalphonsusbalt.org/stamother.htm
- Assuming she was sinless at the time of the Angel’s visit, why is it necessary to say she was born this way? Could she not have been born sinful, and then original sin (and if any occured, any other sin) taken away sometime later in her life?
M
mpartyka
Guest
I think the freewill part comes in when Mary says, “Be it unto me according to thy word.” (Luke 1:38)
I think the answer I’ve been told here is that once a person is stained with original sin, the stain never goes away even if the original sin itself is taken away. That’s why Mary had to be prevented from contracting original sin in the first place – hence, the Immaculate Conception – though we’re still wrestling with why it would be necessary for Mary to be free from all stain of sin for Jesus’ sake when it wasn’t necessary for Mary’s mother Anna to be free from all stain of sin for Mary’s sake.
–Mike
po18guy
Well-known member
Exactly.
Mary was my stumbling block, as well - as she is with many converts. Simply put, God’s grace, as did the Holy Spirit, overshadowed and preserved Mary. Her role in all humanity is 100% unique, so unique graces were needed in this fallen world.
What made Moses special? He stuttered and was supposed to have been drowned in the Nile. What made David special? He was the youngest and smallest of his brothers and was supposed to have been killed by Goliath. What made Peter special? He was rash in judgment, impulsive and a coward in the face of death. He was called Satan to his face. What made Paul special? He was a devout Pharisee and persecutor of the Church, a poor speaker and had a thorn in his side. The answer in each and every case: God’s grace.
But if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for Mary, then why not for all of us? A bit of turnabout there.
What was required is exactly what God did. Mary came out of nowhere, and receded into obscurity in Ephesus. This is the hallmark of a life of grace from God. But, she was not finished. Her apparitions have been well documented and well investigated over the centuries by the Church. As to Joseph, other than receiving a vision, and being upright, we know nothing at all about him. He says not one word in scripture.
No, it does not. However, there is only one human in all history destined to give flesh to our Savior. She fed Him in vitro and she received also from Him. Even though this is not what has been revealed to the Church, and is not Church teaching, you could argue that Mary’s sinlessness was infused by Jesus in her womb. Limiting our discussion to that, does that seem possible? Consider Mary’s 100% special role in salvation history.
But, remember when Peter told Jesus “Certainly not, Lord! Nothing like that must ever happen to you!” (Matthew 16) Jesus called Peter “Satan”, you think as man does and not as God". This is what we are called to emulate, or at least accept: God’s thinking.
Excellent point. However, sin poisons our love, making it impure. From what God has revealed, this was not allowed to happen to the mother of our Lord. Jesus first fed in the womb. As we know now, many nutrients and other blood products are exchanged between mother and child. A family friend nearly dies and /or lost her baby since the child’s blood was a type incompatible with her own. Jesus was so nourished by His mother in the womb and later suckled at her breasts. Yet, He was not tainted in the least. Since sin passes through the blood, how can this be, unless the womb and those breasts were sinless? Certainly, there is nothing in the bible about a magic filter between the two of them!
Who would refuse to be without sin, disease and death? This is a grace, not a forcing of will. Where does this line of reasoning stop? We are all forced into existence? There was a thread about this, by an angry atheist.
Rather, it was a pure exercise of creation, of God’s creative will. It is neither forced, nor begged. It simply IS.
Except Adam and Eve did not conceive until after they had fallen.
We didn’t carry and raise Jesus. It is just that simple. I must not complicate what God has made simple. Just as Peter was not to proclaim as unclean that which God made clean (Acts 10). Jesus taught to let our yes mean yes and our no mean no. Anything more (complication) is from the evil one, and so doubts are planted in our minds, but not by God. I shudder when I think of the other source.
L
Luke_K
Guest
Oh my goodness, this is so much posting for a question with a simple answer.
Q: Did Mary need to be immaculately conceived?
A: No. But it sure was nice of God to give Mary that privilege.
Q: Why aren’t we all immaculately conceived?
A: We don’t know. God could do it that way, but he doesn’t.
And then why not ask the obvious question:
Q: Why is life unfair?
A: We don’t know.
I made a thread about this a while ago and I only got two replies: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=370397
Q: Did Mary need to be immaculately conceived?
A: No. But it sure was nice of God to give Mary that privilege.
Q: Why aren’t we all immaculately conceived?
A: We don’t know. God could do it that way, but he doesn’t.
And then why not ask the obvious question:
Q: Why is life unfair?
A: We don’t know.
I made a thread about this a while ago and I only got two replies: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=370397
M
mpartyka
Guest
But none of these roles that these people fulfilled required them to be preserved from the stain of original sin, and so far, it doesn’t look like there is anything pertaining to Mary’s unique role that required her to be preserved from original sin, either.
Again, kick it back a notch: There was only one human in all history destined to give flesh to the mother of our Savior. She fed her in vitro, too. So why wasn’t Mary’s mother Anna immaculately conceived, too?
Hello??? Same question! Why wasn’t Anna immaculately conceived, then, so that the taint of sin would not be passed on to Mary, who exchanged nutrients and blood with Anna, who was nourished by Anna in the womb, who later suckled at Anna’s breasts, yet was not tainted in the least? If sin really does pass through the blood, how can this be, unless Anna’s womb and breasts were sinless? Certainly, there is nothing in the bible about a magic filter between the two of them!
Exactly! So why doesn’t God make all of us immaculately conceived?
But just as few, if any, people would begrudge their own existence, few, if any, people would begrudge being immaculately conceived. So why does God begrudge all of us but Mary immaculate conception when He doesn’t begrudge all of us existence?
I don’t understand this point. Neither did Joachim and Anna conceive until after they had fallen (to the stain of original sin, that is).
No, God didn’t make it simple! What’s simple is the rule that we are all born with original sin. What’s complex is the exception of Mary. Everyone (except Jesus, of course) was conceived the exact same way that Mary was conceived, but only Mary was conceived without original sin. Why? Sure, she was going to be the Mother of God, but we’ve already established that neither actual sinlessness (or else Joseph would have needed to be actually sinless, too) nor original sinlessness (or else Anna would have had to be immaculately conceived, too) was necessary for her to carry out her role. So why did God make Mary’s conception different from ours?
–Mike
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Nope. None of Jesus’s DNA came from Joseph. It came from our Blessed Mother and from the Father (which is kinda cool), or it came all from our Blessed Mother. Now, Jesus had to be born without sin (a sinner could not save us from our sins, because he would need someone to save him from his sins). Therefore, his Mother had to be sinless, or she would pass on the, what do you want to call it? “contamination”.
F
Flame4
Guest
I think this answers everything. Look I struggled with this as well. I asked, “why didn’t God make me without sin, that would have been nice.” I know it seems unfair, but it isn’t. God can give anything he wants to anyone. He wanted to give Mary this grace and not give it to anyone else. Why aren’t we all immacuatley concieved? God didn’t want to do it that way. Its that simple. God did what he did b/c he wanted to .
Remember that Mary suffered a lot for being the Mother of God. She could have been stoned for what would have been presumed to be intercourse outside of marraige (by concieving Jesus when she wasn’t married.) She watched her son die in a horrible way.
On a brighter note, we each have something special given to us, and we are each loved equally. But we have different places in the world.
God Bless
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Because God does not love everyone the same.
L
Luke_K
Guest
Chaldean Rite:
I agree with Chaldean Rite. Clearly God bestowed more graces on Mary than anyone else. Not all of us can be St. Peter or Moses. Tons of people die while still in the womb. Some people are taught sinful behaviors growing up, while others are raised in good holy households.
Not everyone is called to the same level of holiness. The Church recognizes that holy orders is a higher calling than matrimony, for example. However, we are all called to serve God in the capacity he wants us to and this will make us as happy as our capacity allows.
M
Matorin
Guest
I think you completely missed the past 40 posts…this is behavior not original sin.
Why the double standard on “it is the way it is” on Mary and the big uproar over “God preordained some to heaven and the rest not”?
Also, I find it humorous you asked “Where in the Bible does it say there was a magic filter between them” in a thread on reasons for Catholic veneration of Mary.
R
Roy5
Guest
The God i worship is just, merciful, omnipotent, forgiving, etc.
Code:
As a consequence, I don't believe in original sin. Where is the justice if we are born with sin already on our souls? The notion that it was inherited from Adam strikes me as mythological, since I believe the story of Adam is a myth - or a legendm fable or parable if you prefer. Besides, doesn't the church teach that the age of accountability is - what - seven? So, how can we have this stain when we come into the world?
It seems to me that this weird notion may reflect the strange and unhealthy idea that sex is somehow sinful, even between happily married couples who want children. The Catholic Church has preached too much of that in past centuries. It has elevated virginity and celibacy as though they were preferred states. In reading about female saints, it seems that most of them were virgins. What a put-down for normal women who become wives and mothers!
Medieval thinking like this is one reason so many Catholics have been leaving the church. They have come to the stage where they think for themselves and are no longer willing to believe what they are mandated by the church to believe. They want a faith that is believable.
That's a major reason why I think the Catholic Church must become a 'bigger tent' - more tolerant of diverse thinking when it comes to theology. Let's face it: we don't live in a three-tier world like our spiritual ancestors did. We can't believe in a heaven up there and a hell down there. Read the Church Fathers and they believed all sorts of false things about the heavens and the underworld. No wonder Galileo was condemned and Copernicus was disdained.Back then how many thought there may be a billion solar systems as large as ours. They didn't have microscopes and were unaware that germs were the principal cause of disease. Etc.
This original sin notion is for another era, not for the 21th century. How can we look at a beautiful newborn baby and believe that there is sin on his/her soul until s/he is baptized. And where would there be justice in that?po18guy
Well-known member
But, in your opinion. We must speak of revealed truth rather than opinion. None of those other roles (Moses, David, Peter, Paul) required their bodies to feed our Lord, or the passing of blood, either. Each of God’s chosen had a special grace to rectify whatever they lacked. In Mary’s case, what she lacked was sinlessness, so that was the grace she received. Easy.
Remember, you are discussing this with a know-nothing member of the Catholic laity. I have no credentials behind anything I say. I have tried to portray Church teaching as correctly as I can. However, I have offered opinion along the way, which is worth what you paid for it. Neither Joachim, Anne, nor Joseph needed to be sinless. God reached in and broke the chain of sin in this one case. For His one Son. For all time. Period.
Please tell me.
Is it just possible that you are coming form the viewpoint of Mary as a disposable container, a virtual rent-a-womb? Just some teenager who stumbled by when God was choosing the mother of His son?
Point: No sinless children were ever produced by Adam and Eve. Eve conceived after the fall, so all of subsequent mankind (with one exception or two, depending upon your viewpoint) inherited original sin.
And Adam, and Eve, and Jesus. RULE: Adam, Eve, Mary, Jesus - no sin. Everyone else: sin. That is complicated?
Why do you trust the bible? Sinful men wrote it. Men who bore the stain of sin. Why? Because it was revealed to them by God. Why do Catholics and Orthodox believe that Mary was preserved from original sin? Because God revealed it to them. You seem to trust the written proof, but not the oral proof - even though much of the bible is also based on that same oral truth simply written down. Trusting one revelation, but not the other is the source of all of your difficulty with this concept.
Trace it back. The concept of Mary’s sinlessness runs way back. 1,500 years farther back than bible Christianity.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
- God is able to prevent all humankind from suffering from starvation, cancer, and many other things. Why doesn’t he? Certainly you can not use the argument that his ability to do something must mean he must excercise that ability as we see most appropriate. We are not God, he knows best.
- Why be so negative about this position and look at it from the eyes of the Eastern christians.
She was just so filled up with the Holy Spirit, there wasn’t any room for sin to enter. She just happened to be the one that was. That was why she was found to be the appropriate mother of your Lord. God was very choosy in the bible in many other instances. He searched for holy people in many cases. He flooded the earth, wiped out whole tribes, and did more. He was hard pressed to find many good people I guess.
- Status