Why the Immaculate Conception?

[lobster]

Why did Mary have to be conceived free of original sin? Was it simply symbolic?

 

[prodigalson12]

We had the original arc, she is the new one, the original was blemish less, so was she. The blessed Son of God could not be brought into this world from a blemished nature, and there is so, so much more to this as well. If she conceived him as normal, then he would not be free from original sin also regardless.

 

[DavidKays]

Hi! A lot of people have asked that question! To put it simply if you want the best mother in the world and everyone wants that then you wish she will be perfect in every way. You do not want the devil to have anything to do with her. The teaching of the Church is that the Holy Mother did not commit any sins at all during Her Life. Jesus needed an immaculate Mother. For Him to be born in this world it was necessary to grant to His Mother this privileged Grace. This does not separate Her from the human race. Many of my Orthodox brethren disagree and insists that this Grace does this for Her so many do not accept this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Many believe She was made Immaculate at the Annunciation. I though disagree with them. The Grace given to Her is not wasted. If we were to receive this Grace then yes it will be wasted. But not the Holy Mother. She cooperates fully with this Grace and does not waste it. I do believe that after we die we may receive this same Grace when we enter Heaven. We still have free will after we die and to confirm us fully in Heaven God may give this Grace so that we may continue to be always happy and full of joy. The Holy Mother receives this Grace the moment She is conceives. We may receive this Grace once we enter Heaven, after our stay in Purgatory. I questioned the logic of my own Orthodox because they also believe the Holy Mother was always Immaculate though only from the Annunciation onward. Since you believe the Holy Mother to be Immaculate why not begin from the day She was conceive. The first 15 years are the most important ones in any persons life so why wouldn’t Our Lord grant this Grace immediately to His Mother from the first moment She was conceived! He knew She will cooperate fully and will not waste it. She is to be His Mother and therefore God knows best. God Bless!

 

[JRKH]

Why did Mary have to be conceived free of original sin? Was it simply symbolic?

I am not very knowledgable on this subject but I am going to say that No it was not merely symbolic. I say this for one simple reason.
Mary was to carry “The Spirit and essence of God” in her womb as well as the corporeal flesh of “the Son of Man”. Since “God and evil” cannot co-exist in the same place it was necesary to preserve Mary from any stain so that God could fully infuse His Holy Spirit with the corporeal flesh of Jesus which was being taken from Mary’s flesh.
Thus, by this special grace and favor, Mary could, by God’s grace, give birth to a son who is "100% God and 100% man.

Peace
James

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Why did Mary have to be conceived free of original sin? Was it simply symbolic?

Christ received His human nature from Mary.

 

[lobster]

I am not very knowledgable on this subject but I am going to say that No it was not merely symbolic. I say this for one simple reason.
Mary was to carry “The Spirit and essence of God” in her womb as well as the corporeal flesh of “the Son of Man”. Since “God and evil” cannot co-exist in the same place it was necesary to preserve Mary from any stain so that God could fully infuse His Holy Spirit with the corporeal flesh of Jesus which was being taken from Mary’s flesh.
Thus, by this special grace and favor, Mary could, by God’s grace, give birth to a son who is "100% God and 100% man.

Peace
James

One of the reasons I ask if it was simply symbolic is that I am not sure if I completely grasp the bolded concept above, since it is not necessarily true in all circumstances. For example, when someone receives the Body of Christ in Holy Eucharist in the state of mortal sin, our Lord is subjected to residing within an unworthy vessel. I think of it is a special gift from God that He would offer Himself to us so completely that He would allow us to choose to receive Him worthily or to choose to abuse that great gift. When we receive unworthily, we subject our Lord to the devil. He does not resist, because He did not give Himself conditionally, but completely. That is why I believe it so evil an act to receive unworthily.

 

[lobster]

Hi! A lot of people have asked that question! To put it simply if you want the best mother in the world and everyone wants that then you wish she will be perfect in every way.

Thank you for your reply. Wouldn’t this be symbolic though, since it is not theologically necessary?

 

[lobster]

We had the original arc, she is the new one, the original was blemish less, so was she. The blessed Son of God could not be brought into this world from a blemished nature, and there is so, so much more to this as well.

Logically, this is what is troubling. Mary was brought into the world preserved free of sin, being conceived from a blemished nature, then why couldn’t the Son of God Himself also be?

If she conceived him as normal, then he would not be free from original sin also regardless.

If He were born not free from sin, then He would cease to be God.

 

[JRKH]

One of the reasons I ask if it was simply symbolic is that I am not sure if I completely grasp the bolded concept above, since it is not necessarily true in all circumstances. For example, when someone receives the Body of Christ in Holy Eucharist in the state of mortal sin, our Lord is subjected to residing within an unworthy vessel. I think of it is a special gift from God that He would offer Himself to us so completely that He would allow us to choose to receive Him worthily or to choose to abuse that great gift. When we receive unworthily, we subject our Lord to the devil. He does not resist, because He did not give Himself conditionally, but completely. That is why I believe it so evil an act to receive unworthily.

Have you not read that if one eats and drinks the body and blood unworthily they eat and drink condemnation on themselves?
One who takes communion in a state of mortal sin, does nto receive the graces of that communion. Instead they receive condemnation for until they repent and are reconsiled to The Church, Christ will immediately leave such a one who has rejected Him by their sin.

Peace
James

 

[lobster]

Have you not read that if one eats and drinks the body and blood unworthily they eat and drink condemnation on themselves?

Yes. He also receives the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ and offer Him to the Devil in his body.

One who takes communion in a state of mortal sin, does nto receive the graces of that communion.

Correct.

Instead they receive condemnation for until they repent and are reconsiled to The Church,

Also correct.

Christ will immediately leave such a one who has rejected Him by their sin.

Can you point me to this teaching?
Thanks

 

[JRKH]

Can you point me to this teaching?
Thanks

No I cannot offer you any specific teaching on this this.
It merely follows from the logic of the spiritual elements.

If one is living in Mortal sin, they have rejected God, and rejected His salvation.
God does not reside in such a one.
If a person attempts to, as you said, take Jesus in the Eucharist and, “offer Him to the Devil in his body”, then Jesus, once received, will not remain.
He cannot because God will not force himself on someone who does not desire Him and one who desires Him will not take communion while in a state or Mortal sin.

Peace
James

 

[lobster]

No I cannot offer you any specific teaching on this this.
It merely follows from the logic of the spiritual elements.

If one is living in Mortal sin, they have rejected God, and rejected His salvation.
God does not reside in such a one.
If a person attempts to, as you said, take Jesus in the Eucharist and, “offer Him to the Devil in his body”, then Jesus, once received, will not remain.
He cannot because God will not force himself on someone who does not desire Him and one who desires Him will not take communion while in a state or Mortal sin.

Peace
James

I’m not trying to argue or anything. Only that my understanding had been (the way I was taught) was that when we receive the Eucharist unworthily, we are still indeed receiving the true Body of Christ, but don’t receive any graces. Instead we commit a sacrilege by forcing God to reside in an unworthy temple, which He allows Himself willingly to be subjected to.
Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.

In any case, I am trying to understand the reason for Jesus needing the Immaculate Virgin to be pure in order to enter the world. If He could preserve her from sin (she being born of sinful parents) why couldn’t He preserve Himself from sin, were He to be born of sinful parents? Is it because He couldn’t reside inside the physical body of someone who had sinned? Why would He be able to reside in a physical earth that was full of sin? What significance does it have for His location on Earth to be inside the body of Mary, that Mary must be free of sin.
Note: I fully, 100% believe in the Immaculate Conception. Just trying to understand the theological reason and whether it was simply symbolic, or was it indeed necessary. I am willing to concede that it is possibly beyond my limited human understanding.
Thanks for you help.

 

[Janet1983]

We had the original arc, she is the new one, the original was blemish less, so was she. The blessed Son of God could not be brought into this world from a blemished nature, and there is so, so much more to this as well. If she conceived him as normal, then he would not be free from original sin also regardless.

If Mary could have been conceived without sin by sinful parents, why couldn’t Jesus have been conceived without sin even if Mary had not been?
I do not believe that Mary was without sin throughout her life.

 

[prodigalson12]

While Mary carried Jesus in her womb, the two became one flesh, it would be impossible for God to unite with imperfection, because God is perfection himself. It would be like putting poison into your body.

 

[lobster]

While Mary carried Jesus in her womb, the two became one flesh, it would be impossible for God to unite with imperfection, because God is perfection himself. It would be like putting poison into your body.

Biologically speaking, a newly conceived child is not the same flesh as the mother. It is a completely separate human being, with its own DNA and its own blood. From a spiritual standpoint, the soul of a newly conceived human being is completely different.

 

[lobster]

If Mary could have been conceived without sin by sinful parents, why couldn’t Jesus have been conceived without sin even if Mary had not been?

Jesus is God and exists without sin eternally. Sin is absence of God. It is not possible for the Word to be made incarnate and have sin. Otherwise Jesus wouldn’t be God.

I do not believe that Mary was without sin throughout her life.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was from the moment of her conception free of sin, and remained so until her assumption, after which she continues to be free of all sin. It is a mystery. Of course I struggle with understanding, I do not use my failure to understand as an excuse to not believe.

 

[Janet1983]

Jesus is God and exists without sin eternally. Sin is absence of God. It is not possible for the Word to be made incarnate and have sin. Otherwise Jesus wouldn’t be God.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was from the moment of her conception free of sin, and remained so until her assumption, after which she continues to be free of all sin. It is a mystery. Of course I struggle with understanding, I do not use my failure to understand as an excuse to not believe.

I do understand and I do not believe.

 

[lobster]

I do understand and I do not believe.

What do you understand and still not believe?

 

[Janet1983]

What do you understand and still not believe?

I do understand that the Catholic Church proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary to be a dogma, i.e. something that has to be believed. I do understand that the CC is rather understanding with those struggling with this, but they expect every Catholic to try and not speak out against it.
It (Constitution Ineffabilis Deus) was pronounced by pope Pius IX in the mid-19th century (and consequential her Assumption was pronounced about 100 years later).
The Immaculate Conception defines that Mary was free from sin from the moment of her conception on and without original sin.
I do not believe however that it was necessary and / or probable for her to have been born without sin and to live without sin. Even though I was and am (I guess) expected to believe this I do not. If I ever did it was because I never thought about it in more detail before. I just accepted it as a given fact in my childhood and youth.

 

[davidv]

I do understand that the Catholic Church proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary to be a dogma, i.e. something that has to be believed. I do understand that the CC is rather understanding with those struggling with this, but they expect every Catholic to try and not speak out against it.
It (Constitution Ineffabilis Deus) was pronounced by pope Pius IX in the mid-19th century (and consequential her Assumption was pronounced about 100 years later).
The Immaculate Conception defines that Mary was free from sin from the moment of her conception on and without original sin.
I do not believe however that it was necessary and / or probable for her to have been born without sin and to live without sin. Even though I was and am (I guess) expected to believe this I do not. If I ever did it was because I never thought about it in more detail before. I just accepted it as a given fact in my childhood and youth.

With respect to the bolded statement above, do you believe that the Church teaches that the IC was “necessary”?