Why the Immaculate Conception?

[Janet1983]

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

That’s what I assumed and reading through this thread only supported me in that assumption. If the Lord would decide to make something like this happen I assume He would deem it necessary, wouldn’t He? I do not believe it happened and thereby I do not believe in the necessity of the IC. Please correct me if I am wrong in this matter.
Would you agree with the other parts of my assessment?

For the most part I take my information on the subject out of the CCC (490-492, pp. 123,124), the Catholic encyclopedia and the Vatican homepage and papalencyclicals.net.

 

[davidv]

That’s what I assumed and reading through this thread only supported me in that assumption. If the Lord would decide to make something like this happen I assume He would deem it necessary, wouldn’t He?

We need to have a common understanding of what “necessary” means in this context, because it is my understanding that the Church teaches that the IC was not necessary. She teaches that it is “fitting”. In other words, God could have chosen some other way to Jesus to come into the world. So, “necessary” in this context means, logically necessary.

I do not believe it happened and thereby I do not believe in the necessity of the IC. Please correct me if I am wrong in this matter.

I’m not sure I understand you here. Do you believe it didn’t happen because it wasn’t necessary? If so, see my point above about “necessity”. What makes you think the Church is wrong in teaching that it did happen?

Would you agree with the other parts of my assessment?

For the most part I take my information on the subject out of the CCC (490-492, pp. 123,124), the Catholic encyclopedia and the Vatican homepage and papalencyclicals.net.

I haven’t gone back to your other posts so I don’t have any comment on them at this time.

 

[Janet1983]

We need to have a common understanding of what “necessary” means in this context, because it is my understanding that the Church teaches that the IC was not necessary. She teaches that it is “fitting”. In other words, God could have chosen some other way to Jesus to come into the world. So, “necessary” in this context means, logically necessary.

I’m not sure I understand you here. Do you believe it didn’t happen because it wasn’t necessary? If so, see my point above about “necessity”. What makes you think the Church is wrong in teaching that it did happen?

I haven’t gone back to your other posts so I don’t have any comment on them at this time.

Thank you for telling me about the church teaching of it being “fitting” instead of “necessary”. Please bear with me as I might be proficient in English, but did not learn it as my primary language. All the time that I was Catholic I did spend in Germany and I only once even went to an English Mass. I do not necessarily have the right wording at any given point. I therefore very much appreciate your correction.

Apart from that I simply do not believe in the IC. I understand that the CC tells me I should and I know that the Church demands belief of me. I am not going to submit to the Church’s authority in this matter. As much as I do not believe that the sky turns neon green when we do not look I do not believe that the arguments for the IC are valid.

 

[davidv]

Thank you for telling me about the church teaching of it being “fitting” instead of “necessary”. Please bear with me as I might be proficient in English, but did not learn it as my primary language. All the time that I was Catholic I did spend in Germany and I only once even went to an English Mass. I do not necessarily have the right wording at any given point. I therefore very much appreciate your correction.

Apart from that I simply do not believe in the IC. I understand that the CC tells me I should and I know that the Church demands belief of me. I am not going to submit to the Church’s authority in this matter. As much as I do not believe that the sky turns neon green when we do not look I do not believe that the arguments for the IC are valid.

I would suggest that if you are to make some progress, you need to examine why you don’t believe what the Church teaches.

Is the IC impossible?

If you think so, what prevents God from doing it?

 

[Janet1983]

I would suggest that if you are to make some progress, you need to examine why you don’t believe what the Church teaches.

Is the IC impossible?

If you think so, what prevents God from doing it?

Why should He do so? Jesus Christ was and is without sin. I agree to that. He was however capable of sinning and capable of being tempted, otherwise the devil wouldn’t have tried Him.
Mary was not. She is the perfect example how God can take a normal young woman, whom He sees capable and make her the mother of the Messiah. She is the perfect example of obedience to God to the utmost extend. She could have been stoned for adultery in the worst case scenario. She did however give herself over to the Lord and trusted Him alone.
In that she is a role model and special and her actions and her deep faith are honorable.
I do not believe that there is more to this. As much as the Lord would have made sure that Scripture would point it out to us that she was assumed (which I don’t believe either as it sure doesn’t) He would have made sure that her conception was within the canon of Scripture.

God is not being prevented from doing anything at any point in time. He could make the sky nean green when we do not look… but I still doubt it.

 

[davidv]

Why should He do so?

Because, as we have indicated before it was fitting that she be created in the same state that Eve was created, without original sin. From this point she is the position to make the right choices instead of the wrong choices Eve made. Just as Jesus, as the new Adam, undos the evil of Adam’s sin by being obedient.

Jesus Christ was and is without sin. I agree to that. He was however capable of sinning and capable of being tempted, otherwise the devil wouldn’t have tried Him.
Mary was not.

Mary was not what? Mary did not lose the ability to sin, nor was she free from tempation. What she was free from was concupiscience.

She is the perfect example how God can take a normal young woman, whom He sees capable and make her the mother of the Messiah. She is the perfect example of obedience to God to the utmost extend. She could have been stoned for adultery in the worst case scenario. She did however give herself over to the Lord and trusted Him alone.
In that she is a role model and special and her actions and her deep faith are honorable.
I do not believe that there is more to this.

Why should there not be more to it than that?

As much as the Lord would have made sure that Scripture would point it out to us that she was assumed (which I don’t believe either as it sure doesn’t) He would have made sure that her conception was within the canon of Scripture.

Why? As a finite collection of writings, the Bible cannot contain all truth. That is why Jess instituted the Church. The Church was left in charge of the Deposit of Faith, to guard it and teach it.

God is not being prevented from doing anything at any point in time. He could make the sky nean green when we do not look… but I still doubt it.

All of us have doubts. Does this mean we should disregard Church teachings?

 

[Janet1983]

Because, as we have indicated before it was fitting that she be created in the same state that Eve was created, without original sin. From this point she is the position to make the right choices instead of the wrong choices Eve made.

I do not believe that it was fitting and I do not believe she was created in the same state as Eve. I simply reject this teaching and I do not believe in its validity.
I used to believe it for many years and I was confirmed in the Catholic faith. Today I do not agree with this anymore and I refuse to submit to the authority of the CC in this matter.

All of us have doubts. Does this mean we should disregard Church teachings?

I do know that I am disregarding Church teachings. I do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe certain Marian dogmas.

 

[lobster]

Because, as we have indicated before it was fitting that she be created in the same state that Eve was created, without original sin.

Exactly. It would not be fitting that the Mother of God be tainted with sin in any way, original or otherwise. In fact, not only was the Blessed Virgin free from all sin because she was filled with grace and chose not to sin, but she could not sin.

 

[davidv]

I do not believe that it was fitting and I do not believe she was created in the same state as Eve. I simply reject this teaching and I do not believe in its validity.
I used to believe it for many years and I was confirmed in the Catholic faith. Today I do not agree with this anymore and I refuse to submit to the authority of the CC in this matter.

Why? How does the IC in any way keep you from loving God and loving neighbor?

I do know that I am disregarding Church teachings. I do believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe certain Marian dogmas.

Given that Jesus started the Church and gave it the authority to teach on His behalf, I don’t understand this position?

 

[Janet1983]

In fact, not only was the Blessed Virgin free from all sin because she was filled with grace and chose not to sin, but she could not sin.

Mary was not what? Mary did not lose the ability to sin, nor was she free from tempation. What she was free from was concupiscience.

Now you are contradicting each other. Which one is the official teaching now? (bold added by me)

 

[Janet1983]

Why? How does the IC in any way keep you from loving God and loving neighbor?

Given that Jesus started the Church and gave it the authority to teach on His behalf, I don’t understand this position?

I love the Lord and I love my neighbor.

I am aware that my belief is at odds with Catholic teaching but I am not going to change it because of that. The teaching of the IC does not keep me from anything and it does not have a special relevance to me. I still will not believe it as much as I do not believe in the Assumption of Mary, nor in her being sinless throughout her life.

 

[lobster]

Now you are contradicting each other. Which one is the official teaching now? (bold added by me)

Actually, no she was not free from temptation.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);
• Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”);
• Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
• Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (“Nom. viii de Natali Domini”);
• Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).
• In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (On Nature and Grace 36).
• Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.”);
• it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
• she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);
• she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
• when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).
• The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
• To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).
• Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.

 

[lobster]

Mary did not lose the ability to sin, nor was she free from tempation.

Now you are contradicting each other. Which one is the official teaching now? (bold added by me)

You are confusing two things. Mary was physically capable of sin, however she could not possibly sin nor possibly choose to sin, because she was “full of grace”. It was impossible for her to choose to turn away from God. Why? Because for her to be able to sin would mean that she was not full of grace, but only had some grace.
The greater mystery is that we are powerless to do anything good on our own without grace.

 

[davidv]

You are confusing two things. Mary was physically capable of sin, however she could not possibly sin nor possibly choose to sin, because she was “full of grace”. It was impossible for her to choose to turn away from God. Why? Because for her to be able to sin would mean that she was not full of grace, but only had some grace.
The greater mystery is that we are powerless to do anything good on our own without grace.

I think the distinctions here can be very confusing to those not familiar with Marian doctrines. When Mary faced a moral choice she was free to choose either. If she had not submitted her will completed to God she could have sinned. This shows the awesome power available to us, if we would align our will with God’s and obey Him.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Jane1983

I would suggest you may find your difference in Tradition, not scripture. The scripture reference is significant for the IC but small and no reference for the assumption. These teachings come from tradition not scripture and that is why Popes felt no quick need to make official dogmas of the teachings. Today with Protestants often launching any and every ridiculous attack against the Church it is good the teachings are official. So catholics today are to be taught the truth and to with stand the marketing efforts against such teachings.

Hope that helps

 

[lobster]

I think the distinctions here can be very confusing to those not familiar with Marian doctrines. When Mary faced a moral choice she was free to choose either. If she had not submitted her will completed to God she could have sinned. This shows the awesome power available to us, if we would align our will with God’s and obey Him.

Yes, you are correct. I find it very confusing myself. It certainly is an awesome concept.

 

[JRKH]

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.

I cannot correct you in this, because I Honestly do not know.

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.

I’m afraid I cannot help you then for my knowledge fails me on this. I could offer guesses but I do not wish to put forth anything that might contradict the Church’s teachings. So I guess it is best that I withdraw and just lurk on this thread awhile.
Perhaps we will both learn some things.

Peace
James