Why aren't we all immaculately conceived?

[po18guy]

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?

You are questioning God’s actions here. I cannot speak for him, and barely for myself. Both you and Mike seem upset that someone would enjoy a special grace from God, while others do not. What about the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Paul says we each have different gifts, and different abilities within those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-11). Who’s complaining?

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.

No problem - it’s in our fallen nature.

1. 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?

The following is in Catholic/Orthodox language, which is different from the Christian language that you speak, OK? I do not expect you to agree with or understand this, since you come from a substantially different background. However, reason and logic are always a part of faith. God chose who would be the mother of Jesus’ human nature, right? For His own reasons, it was revealed to the Church that He chose to preserve Mary from all sin. Know also that Martin Luther believed this. So, it: 1. makes sense and 2. was divinely revealed to the early Church. This is a pure matter of faith in what has been revealed to man.

sidenote: yes I believe in free will, but, and perhaps I am the only person who understands it this way and am completely wrong, but when the angel says “You will be with child…he will be great/called the Son of the Most High…Lord God will give him the throne…will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end,” all I see is you will you will you will you will and this is not a “will you” but the affirmative “you will.”

Keep reading along in Luke, all the way to verse 38: Gabriel remained with Mary until she gave her assent: “Be it done to me according to thy word. Then the angel left her” After waiting for her to demonstrate her free will acceptance of God’s plan.

Consider: Paul teaches that God wills the salvation of all men, right? (1 Timothy 2:3-4) Not some, but all. Including the Pharisees, who were condemned seven-fold by Jesus. They thwarted God’s plan for them (Luke 7:30). How? By the improper exercise of their free will.

1. Slightly off topic, but something I see as a logical result from all this: stalphonsusbalt.org/stamother.htm

Read the prayer at the end. It places it all in context.

1. 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?

Even though God is outside of time, He plans ahead. He is patient, but he does not procrastinate. Does it make any sense for him to create a sinful woman only to have to purify her some time later? It is easier to prevent than to cure. Anyway, we are speaking of a nearly 2,000 year old revelation to the Church. Anything could have happened, but only one thing actually did. That some fell away from this belief in the past few centuries is a shame.

 

[LJH1980]

You are questioning God’s actions here. I cannot speak for him, and barely for myself. Both you and Mike seem upset that someone would enjoy a special grace from God, while others do not. What about the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Paul says we each have different gifts, and different abilities within those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-11). Who’s complaining?

I’m complaining. Billions and billions of souls in hell are complaining.
Over 60% of the world is not Christian. A much larger number if you say not-Catholic.

So by being born with original sin, they are destined to go to hell unless they can receive baptism before hand. So even if I were the perfect Catholic, and I gave birth to a baby, and it died an hour later in the hospital, before I got it baptized… now my baby is in hell suffering eternally forever.
And I’m supposed to be OK with that. I cannot picture myself in heaven being at peace knowing that my child was suffering eternally because I didn’t get there in time

 

[davidv]

I’m complaining. Billions and billions of souls in hell are complaining.
Over 60% of the world is not Christian. A much larger number if you say not-Catholic.

So by being born with original sin, they are destined to go to hell unless they can receive baptism before hand. So even if I were the perfect Catholic, and I gave birth to a baby, and it died an hour later in the hospital, before I got it baptized… now my baby is in hell suffering eternally forever.
And I’m supposed to be OK with that. I cannot picture myself in heaven being at peace knowing that my child was suffering eternally because I didn’t get there in time

You would have point if the Church actually taught what you just described. However your perception of Church teaching on this matter are severely distorted. Please consult the Catechism.

 

[po18guy]

I’m complaining. Billions and billions of souls in hell are complaining.
Over 60% of the world is not Christian. A much larger number if you say not-Catholic.

So by being born with original sin, they are destined to go to hell unless they can receive baptism before hand. So even if I were the perfect Catholic, and I gave birth to a baby, and it died an hour later in the hospital, before I got it baptized… now my baby is in hell suffering eternally forever.
And I’m supposed to be OK with that. I cannot picture myself in heaven being at peace knowing that my child was suffering eternally because I didn’t get there in time

Please have a look at the Catechism - it disagrees with you on this subject.

 

[mpartyka]

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”.

Right, but the question is, if Mary had to be sinless because otherwise Jesus would have picked up contamination from her, then why didn’t Mary’s mother Anna have to be sinless, too, so that Mary wouldn’t pick up contamination from Anna? And in turn, why didn’t Anna’s mother have to be sinless so that Anna could be free from contamination, etc., etc., going all the way back to Eve, whom we all know wasn’t free from the stain of original sin (having been a party to the commission of that original sin)?

–Mike

 

[po18guy]

Right, but the question is, if Mary had to be sinless because otherwise Jesus would have picked up contamination from her, then why didn’t Mary’s mother Anna have to be sinless, too, so that Mary wouldn’t pick up contamination from Anna? And in turn, why didn’t Anna’s mother have to be sinless so that Anna could be free from contamination, etc., etc., going all the way back to Eve, whom we all know wasn’t free from the stain of original sin (having been a party to the commission of that original sin)?

–Mike

Mike, are you missing the point that God can choose anyone He wants to as a recipient of His grace? You seem to have a circular argument going here. We are speaking of accomplished, revealed fact, not hypothesis. Do you honestly seek understanding of this?

Saint Augustine taught: “Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not try to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand”

Rather difficult to top that.

 

[mpartyka]

…I don’t believe in original sin. Where is the justice if we are born with sin already on our souls?

I actually don’t have a problem with this because, knowing that Adam and Eve sinned in a perfect world, I recognize that I myself would certainly sin in a fallen, sin-stained world, even if I were born clean of original sin. So I can identify with Adam and Eve’s guilt because had I been in their shoes, I know I would have sinned, too, just like they did. (But this knowledge is part of what disturbs me about the teaching that Mary herself was free from actual sin – why would she succeed in avoiding sin in a fallen world when Adam and Eve fell in a perfect world?)

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?

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that, no. “Age of accountability” is a strictly Protestant thing.

The Catholic Church…has elevated virginity and celibacy as though they were preferred states.

Well, even the apostle Paul said the state of virginity was preferable to the state of marriage, but that was mostly because married people have more worries and obligations than single people do, not because there was anything intrinsically sinful about the married state. Paul simply taught that different people had different gifts and different callings – some were called to be virgins, and some were called to be married, same as some are called to be prophets while others are called to be teachers, healers, miracle-workers, etc. Not everybody’s an eye, and not everybody’s an ear, etc., etc. The Church needs people of all kinds.

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?

You sound more Orthodox than Catholic. Orthodox look at original sin in a different way – in their view there is no guilt associated with original sin, just the disordered condition of the body and soul into which we are all born as a result of being naturally cut off from God’s energies (i.e., eternal life). They look at baptism as being necessary to connect a child up with God’s energies, but they don’t look at children as needing to be forgiven before they sin actually. (At least, that’s what I think the Orthodox Church teaches. It’s been a while since I studied anything over in that area. And I don’t know what they teach about babies who die unbaptized, either.)

–Mike

 

[davidv]

Right, but the question is, if Mary had to be sinless because otherwise Jesus would have picked up contamination from her, then why didn’t Mary’s mother Anna have to be sinless, too, so that Mary wouldn’t pick up contamination from Anna? And in turn, why didn’t Anna’s mother have to be sinless so that Anna could be free from contamination, etc., etc., going all the way back to Eve, whom we all know wasn’t free from the stain of original sin (having been a party to the commission of that original sin)?

–Mike

See bold. The Church does not teach that Mary’s sinlessness was a necessity (“had to be”). It is revealed truth and it fitting to the purpose of Mary’s vocation as the Mother of God. So, the proposed series of had to be’s is not required.

 

[mpartyka]

Why do Catholics and Orthodox believe that Mary was preserved from original sin?

Actually, Orthodox don’t believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, and it isn’t required under Orthodoxy to believe that she was sinless her whole life, either (or that she was assumed into heaven, for that matter). Orthodoxy never locked down Marian doctrine the way Catholicism has.

–Mike

 

[po18guy]

Actually, Orthodox don’t believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, and it isn’t required under Orthodoxy to believe that she was sinless her whole life, either (or that she was assumed into heaven, for that matter). Orthodoxy never locked down Marian doctrine the way Catholicism has.

–Mike

You probably have me here, as I have not delved into Orthodoxy specifically regarding Marian doctrine. I should have investigated before speaking. Sorry for that.

If you studied Orthodoxy, why don’t you obtain and study the Catechism instead of interacting with ever-so-fallible sources like me?

 

[mpartyka]

RULE: Adam, Eve, Mary, Jesus - no sin. Everyone else: sin. That is complicated?

Yes, it is complicated.

Why were Adam and Eve without sin? Easy – because God directly created them, right? So until they sinned, they had no sin. But once they sinned, then not only were they themselves corrupted by their original sin, but all their progeny were corrupted by their original sin, too. That much is simple.

But then along comes Mary. Mary, unlike anyone before her, is conceived without original sin. God apparently intervenes and stops her from contracting original sin, thus showing that He apparently had the power to do this for everyone who came before her but chose not to. Why?

(For that matter, why was Jesus free of original sin? We’ve pretty much treated that as if it goes without saying.)

–Mike

 

[po18guy]

But then along comes Mary. Mary, unlike anyone before her, is conceived without original sin. God apparently intervenes and stops her from contracting original sin, thus showing that He apparently had the power to do this for everyone who came before her but chose not to. Why?

You will receive your answer only in prayer. Personally, I have come to find this doctrine quite easy to grasp - especially after I accepted the concept of a God who creates substance, indeed the entire universe, out of nothing by an act of pure will. Preserving one more human from sin (after twice doing this before) is a grain of sand on the beach by comparison.

(For that matter, why was Jesus free of original sin? We’ve pretty much treated that as if it goes without saying.) --Mike

I don’t know your personal concept of Jesus. The Catholic Church believes, and teaches, that Jesus is divine, eternally coexistent with the Father and the Holy Spirit. As such, He is pure and perfect, including His human nature. There is no sin in God, none in the Holy Spirit, and none in Jesus. To believe such is to ascribe human traits to God, when the reverse is true - if you believe Genesis regarding our being made in the image and likeness of God.

Is this perhaps where you are experiencing difficulty?

Here is the official teaching on the transmittal of original sin:

CCC404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

CCC405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

CCC406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

Footnotes:

293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512
295 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.
296 DS 371-372.
297 Cf. DS 1510-1516.

 

[mpartyka]

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

Does the CCC say how Jesus avoided contracting original sin? I mean, does it attribute his not contracting original sin to Mary’s being free of original sin, or does it just say, “He was God, so his human nature couldn’t contract it,” or does it give some other reason?

–Mike

 

[Matorin]

You are questioning God’s actions here. I cannot speak for him, and barely for myself. Both you and Mike seem upset that someone would enjoy a special grace from God, while others do not. What about the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Paul says we each have different gifts, and different abilities within those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-11). Who’s complaining?

I have no problem with people enjoying special grace from God. I just find it ironic that after we are done talking about this here, you will go off and lambast a Calvinist when their defense is the same as yours. I want the same standards applied to yourself as applied to others. I don’t mean this trying to be rude or argumentative I apologize if it is coming across that way.

For His own reasons, it was revealed to the Church that He chose to preserve Mary from all sin.

Okay, if that is the argument then let us build the argument on the validity of the revelation, instead of what we are talking about now.

Know also that Martin Luther believed this.

There are many things that he and various church fathers believed that I do not. For example, do you believe that all sex is unholy and that sex was the forbidden fruit in the garden that made the downfall of man?

So, it: 1. makes sense and

Well clearly it isn’t making sense to some of us, eh? This cannot be used as a “proof.”

1. was divinely revealed to the early Church. This is a pure matter of faith in what has been revealed to man.

Certainly the Immaculate Conception was a matter of contention within the church during the middle ages and we have no evidence of it before. Sinlessness yes, IC no. Notice that IC did not come to be acceptable because of divine revelation but instead with the argument of Duns Scotus.

Keep reading along in Luke, all the way to verse 38: Gabriel remained with Mary until she gave her assent: “Be it done to me according to thy word. Then the angel left her” After waiting for her to demonstrate her free will acceptance of God’s plan.

Sorry, but I find this a bit ludicrous that you use this as your argument. Look at OT Sarah and Abraham. Sarah doesn’t accept that she will have a child, but does anyway. Would perhaps she have been more blessed if she had been humbled and accepted it? Maybe, probably, I don’t know though. Did her unbelief change what happened? Nope.

Read the prayer at the end. It places it all in context.

So you agree with "I bless and thank Almighty God, who in His mercy has given me this confidence in thee, which I hold to be a pledge of my eternal salvation. "

“thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying”

“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul.”

“For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together;** nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.**” (Man there are SO MANY THINGS wrong with this)

Please explain it to me so that I may understand.

Even though God is outside of time, He plans ahead. He is patient, but he does not procrastinate. Does it make any sense for him to create a sinful woman only to have to purify her some time later? It is easier to prevent than to cure.

Did you just say that I am underestimating God then say it’s harder for God to do something one way than the other? I LOL’d.

Anyway, we are speaking of a nearly 2,000 year old revelation to the Church. Anything could have happened, but only one thing actually did. That some fell away from this belief in the past few centuries is a shame.

I think you are living in a Bubble. I have been talking with an Orthodox priest on the subject of Mary and countering him with your views is quite funny. You RCC’ers always make me feel bad about myself, then I go talk to some Eastern Orthodox and it cheers me up. I am not saying any of that to make you angry, but please don’t shove me off to the side or patronize me.

 

[fhansen]

I have no problem with people enjoying special grace from God. I just find it ironic that after we are done talking about this here, you will go off and lambast a Calvinist when their defense is the same as yours. I want the same standards applied to yourself as applied to others. I don’t mean this trying to be rude or argumentative I apologize if it is coming across that way.

Okay, if that is the argument then let us build the argument on the validity of the revelation, instead of what we are talking about now.

There are many things that he and various church fathers believed that I do not. For example, do you believe that all sex is unholy and that sex was the forbidden fruit in the garden that made the downfall of man?

Well clearly it isn’t making sense to some of us, eh? This cannot be used as a “proof.”

Certainly the Immaculate Conception was a matter of contention within the church during the middle ages and we have no evidence of it before. Sinlessness yes, IC no. Notice that IC did not come to be acceptable because of divine revelation but instead with the argument of Duns Scotus.

Sorry, but I find this a bit ludicrous that you use this as your argument. Look at OT Sarah and Abraham. Sarah doesn’t accept that she will have a child, but does anyway. Would perhaps she have been more blessed if she had been humbled and accepted it? Maybe, probably, I don’t know though. Did her unbelief change what happened? Nope.

So you agree with "I bless and thank Almighty God, who in His mercy has given me this confidence in thee, which I hold to be a pledge of my eternal salvation. "

“thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying”

“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul.”

“For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together;** nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.**” (Man there are SO MANY THINGS wrong with this)

Please explain it to me so that I may understand.

Did you just say that I am underestimating God then say it’s harder for God to do something one way than the other? I LOL’d.

I think you are living in a Bubble. I have been talking with an Orthodox priest on the subject of Mary and countering him with your views is quite funny. You RCC’ers always make me feel bad about myself, then I go talk to some Eastern Orthodox and it cheers me up. I am not saying any of that to make you angry, but please don’t shove me off to the side or patronize me.

Do you believe any revelation is valid, and, if so, by what or whose authority? When it comes to claims of supernatural truth, how does one come to believe in the validity of Scriptural authority or that of a person or a Church or anything else for that matter?

 

[mpartyka]

Preserving one more human from sin (after twice doing this before) is a grain of sand on the beach by comparison.

But 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.

Does it make any sense for him to create a sinful woman only to have to purify her some time later? It is easier to prevent than to cure. Anyway, we are speaking of a nearly 2,000 year old revelation to the Church. Anything could have happened, but only one thing actually did. That some fell away from this belief in the past few centuries is a shame.

But the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a belief consistently held by the Church for 2,000 years. As late as the 4th century the Church was undecided as to whether Mary was actually sinless. (It might actually be later than that, since Orthodoxy split off from Catholicism in the 10th century, and Orthodoxy doesn’t require belief in Mary’s sinlessness.) As late as the 15th century the Church was undecided as to whether Mary was sinless from conception. And until the mid-19th century the Church was undecided as to whether Mary was simply cleansed of original sin at conception or altogether prevented from contracting original sin at conception. The Immaculate Conception is a belief that progressed to its final form over time and only later, finally, in 1850, was declared to be divinely revealed and necessary for all Catholics to believe. (Not to say that the progressive origins of the Immaculate Conception means it’s wrong, but just that you’re giving a false picture of history in saying that it’s a 2,000 year old revelation that people only recently started rejecting.)

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I have been talking with an Orthodox priest on the subject of Mary and countering him with your views is quite funny.

I’m curious to know what the Orthodox priest says. Can you please share? I wonder if I’ve been representing the Orthodox position accurately or not.

–Mike

 

[anthony022071]

Right, but the question is, if Mary had to be sinless because otherwise Jesus would have picked up contamination from her, then why didn’t Mary’s mother Anna have to be sinless, too, so that Mary wouldn’t pick up contamination from Anna? And in turn, why didn’t Anna’s mother have to be sinless so that Anna could be free from contamination, etc., etc., going all the way back to Eve, whom we all know wasn’t free from the stain of original sin (having been a party to the commission of that original sin)?

–Mike

Mary’s ancestors didn’t have to be sinless because only Mary was to be the mother of Jesus. God did not have to do for Mary’s ancestors what he chose to do for Mary. He does not act according to man’s ideas of logically consistency or determinististic logic,nor is he bound to respect biological determinism.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Yes, it is complicated.

Why were Adam and Eve without sin? Easy – because God directly created them, right? So until they sinned, they had no sin. But once they sinned, then not only were they themselves corrupted by their original sin, but all their progeny were corrupted by their original sin, too. That much is simple.

But then along comes Mary. Mary, unlike anyone before her, is conceived without original sin. God apparently intervenes and stops her from contracting original sin, thus showing that He apparently had the power to do this for everyone who came before her but chose not to. Why?

(For that matter, why was Jesus free of original sin? We’ve pretty much treated that as if it goes without saying.)

–Mike

I will answer your question if you can answer mine:

**God has the power to protect literally anyone on earth from suffering, yet why does God only intervene in some people? Why are there Christians who die the most painful death? Why are there Christians who pray for their sickness yet still died? God has the power to stop sickness right? God has the power, then are you telling me your benevolent God is not gonna do anything for even His people? **

 

[Flame4]

Because God does not love everyone the same.

I **think **God loves us all the same, but we are different and have different jobs and graces.

EDIT: Maybe that is what you meant, but at first I though you were saying God doesn’t love us equally.