Why wasn't the mother of Mary immaculate conceived?

[inkaneer]

Of course, as Protestants, they will probably come back and say that Mary could have borne Jesus as a sinner. In fact that was impossible, because jesus would have inherited her sinful nature, rather than a pre-fall human nature.

Seems to me this logic is no logic. Why is it that if Mary was born in sin that Jesus would have inherited her sinful nature. Yet Mary’s mother and father were born in sin but Mary doesn’t inherit their sinful nature???

Mary was immaculately concieved as her reward for her part in the Incarnation. That is it. By so rewarding Mary, The Father gives His only begotten Son the best mother He could possibly give.

But to answer the protestants I would refer them to Mt 7:9-11 where Jesus says:

“9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” [Mt 7:9-11 RSV]

Protestants use this passage to claim that God will answer their prayers. If they ask for it, God will give them bread not a stone. The same if they ask for a fish they will receive it not the serpent. They fully expect God will reward those who are, by their own admission, wretched sinners. But yet protestants maintain that to His Only Begotten Son, God will give Him the stone or the serpent for a mother. The hypocriscy inherent in this is unfathomable and borders on blasphemy.

 

[James224]

Well, and I am shooting from the hip here, if Mary is the new Ark then SHE had to be clean, not the ground the metal was mined, not the tree the wood was taken from, etc. Just the VESSEL needed to be clean, not the entire line of things which made the vessel. Kind of like the sacred vessels used in the Temple services required sanctity, but the mines the gold was taken from were not sacred. The one stipulation was that nothing which was used to prepare these vessels had ever been profaned through idol worship, worship of false gods, or used for any profane (ordinary) purpose.

Again, just shooting from the hip.

FSC

Exactly! Very Good!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The reason that the mother of Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived was that it wasn’t necessary. Then why was it necessary in Mary’s case?

Certaintain things were accomplished in the Incarnation of Jesus.

1. Jesus’ humanity could not be inclined towards sin as post fall humanity was inclined towards sin. Pre-fall humanity would be OK because it was not yet inclined towards sin.
2. Jesus’ humanity could include all things that came post-fall that did not involve sin. The toil of working for a living would be one example. Jesus hungered, thirst, and shed tears and wept. Such things did not happen pre-fall but did happen post-fall.
3. Jesus would derive His humanity from Mary. That humanity would not be separately created for Hm by God but would indirectly come from god through Mary–His humainity would be dervied from her. Why? Bcause He was the Son of man. Mary was Christ’s mother–not Christ’s incubator!

So how could Christ have the pre-fall humanity regarding sin and all other aspect of post-fall humanity that do not involve sin? B the Immaculate Conception of Mary!

The reason that Mary’s mother–St. Anne–didn’t have to be immaculately conceived is because Mary needed to transmit to Jesus the aspects of humanity post-fall that did not involve sin.

The reason that Mary needed to be Immaculately conceived is so that Mary could transmit to Jesus his humanity that did not involve sin.

Could God have done it differently? Yes–God could have created Jesus’ humanity from scratch like He did Adam and Eve’s–but it was more fitting that Jesus’ humanity would derive from Mary’s humanity stetching back to Adam and Eve so that He would truely be one of us.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is the perfect solution to Jesus’ humanity being BOTH post-fall and pre-fall. The pre-fall humanity of part of Mary’s humanity that was full of grace and the post-fall part of Mary’s humanity that she derived from her mother St. Anne!

The reson that May’s mother didn’t have to be Immaculately conceived is so that Jesus could derive that post-fall humanity from His mother Mary.

Catholics aren’t about either/or they are about both/and!

Not post-fall or pre-fall humanity of Jesus but post-fall AND pre-fall humanity of Jesus! BOTH without sin–BOTH derived from His mother Mary!

 

[inkaneer]

The reason that the mother of Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived was that it wasn’t necessary. Then why was it necessary in Mary’s case?

Certaintain things were accomplished in the Incarnation of Jesus.

1. Jesus’ humanity could not be inclined towards sin as post fall humanity was inclined towards sin. Pre-fall humanity would be OK because it was not yet inclined towards sin.
2. Jesus’ humanity could include all things that came post-fall that did not involve sin. The toil of working for a living would be one example. Jesus hungered, thirst, and shed tears and wept. Such things did not happen pre-fall but did happen post-fall.
3. Jesus would derive His humanity from Mary. That humanity would not be separately created for Hm by God but would indirectly come from god through Mary–His humainity would be dervied from her. Why? Bcause He was the Son of man. Mary was Christ’s mother–not Christ’s incubator!

So how could Christ have the pre-fall humanity regarding sin and all other aspect of post-fall humanity that do not involve sin? B the Immaculate Conception of Mary!

The reason that Mary’s mother–St. Anne–didn’t have to be immaculately conceived is because Mary needed to transmit to Jesus the aspects of humanity post-fall that did not involve sin.

The reason that Mary needed to be Immaculately conceived is so that Mary could transmit to Jesus his humanity that did not involve sin.

Could God have done it differently? Yes–God could have created Jesus’ humanity from scratch like He did Adam and Eve’s–but it was more fitting that Jesus’ humanity would derive from Mary’s humanity stetching back to Adam and Eve so that He would truely be one of us.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is the perfect solution to Jesus’ humanity being BOTH post-fall and pre-fall. The pre-fall humanity of part of Mary’s humanity that was full of grace and the post-fall part of Mary’s humanity that she derived from her mother St. Anne!

The reson that May’s mother didn’t have to be Immaculately conceived is so that Jesus could derive that post-fall humanity from His mother Mary.

Catholics aren’t about either/or they are about both/and!

Not post-fall or pre-fall humanity of Jesus but post-fall AND pre-fall humanity of Jesus! BOTH without sin–BOTH derived from His mother Mary!

Well that is all well and good but the flaw is that when you say that it wasn’t necessary for mother of Mary to be immaculately conceived but it was necessary in Mary’s case, you are, in effect, placing a limitation on God. God could have begotten Jesus through a sinful Mary without any stain of original sin coming from Mary simply because He is God. It really it comes down to the question is God more powerful than sin or not? This idea that God HAD to do this or it was NECESSARY for God to do that is a basic denial of the sovereignty of God over sin as well as a denial of His omnipotence. This is a God who created everything out of nothing. Do you think such a little thing as sin will pose a problem thyat would force Him to do something this or that way? I don’t.

 

[Axion]

Well that is all well and good but the flaw is that when you say that it wasn’t necessary for mother of Mary to be immaculately conceived but it was necessary in Mary’s case, you are, in effect, placing a limitation on God. God could have begotten Jesus through a sinful Mary without any stain of original sin coming from Mary simply because He is God. It really it comes down to the question is God more powerful than sin or not? This idea that God HAD to do this or it was NECESSARY for God to do that is a basic denial of the sovereignty of God over sin as well as a denial of His omnipotence. This is a God who created everything out of nothing. Do you think such a little thing as sin will pose a problem thyat would force Him to do something this or that way? I don’t.

No. That’s just illogical. Can God be sin? It’s no use saying that God is powerful enough to do anything, therefore He could be sinful if He wanted to. Some things are just contrary to the very nature of God. One of these is to be a sinner.

If God took a sinful nature from Mary, HE would become sinful. There are only two ways this could be avoided.

1. God eliminates the sin from the human nature before it becomes His - ie while it is in Mary. Ergo Mary MUST be made sinless before the incarnation.
2. God eliminates the sin from the Human Nature when it has become His human nature. This means that He has become a sinner and is redeeming Himself! Not possible. Therefore only Option one is available.

None of this means Mary’s parents must be sinless because Mary, being human CAN be redeemed.

 

[PJM]

=LongJohnSilver;7037311]I am debating some Protestants, and they countered my argument for the Immaculate Conception of Mary by claiming that, according to the same reasoning, the mother of Mary too should have been born without sin. What arguments can I use to refute that claim?

Thanks a lot.

No, this argument is without merit. were it true, one would have to back-track all the way to Eve, who along with adam would not then have sinned.

The answer is that Ann is the Mother of Mary NOT thee Mother of God. [Luke 1 26-35]

Secondly the argument tends to question God’s Will and God’s Power. NOT a Christian thougt.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[inkaneer]

No. That’s just illogical. Can God be sin? It’s no use saying that God is powerful enough to do anything, therefore He could be sinful if He wanted to. Some things are just contrary to the very nature of God. One of these is to be a sinner.

If God took a sinful nature from Mary, HE would become sinful. There are only two ways this could be avoided.

1. God eliminates the sin from the human nature before it becomes His - ie while it is in Mary. Ergo Mary MUST be made sinless before the incarnation.
2. God eliminates the sin from the Human Nature when it has become His human nature. This means that He has become a sinner and is redeeming Himself! Not possible. Therefore only Option one is available.

None of this means Mary’s parents must be sinless because Mary, being human CAN be redeemed.

Did I say God could be sinful if he wanted to? I don’t think I did so please do not attribute words to me that I did not say. I find that very dishonest of you. What I said was that God, being an all powerful God and more powerful than sin itself, could have dealt with sin anyway He wanted to. Therefore, it was NOT necessary that Mary had to be concieved sinless in order for Jesus to inherit a sinless human nature. Carry that logic back one generation and Mary’s parents have to be born immaculate also because if not, then Mary inherits a sinful nature from her parents. So where does one draw the line and say here is where the miracle occurred? Your logic is thus overly simplistic not to mentioin faulty plus it is theologically wanting in that you place a restriction on a God who has no restrictions.

In addition, I find your ideas to be similar to those of Protestants who claim that God USED Mary. For when you say it was necessary for Mary to have no sin so Jesus would inherit a non sinful nature that is why God made her sinless you make Mary nothing more than a sex object for God. Mary then becomes a tooll, something to be used for another purpose. I find that idea to be morally disgusting and theologically repugnant. God is a just God. He rewards those who do His will just as He punishes those who don’t. Mary said yes to the will of God and her Immaculate Conception was her reward.

 

[Axion]

Did I say God could be sinful if he wanted to? I don’t think I did so please do not attribute words to me that I did not say. I find that very dishonest of you. What I said was that God, being an all powerful God and more powerful than sin itself, could have dealt with sin anyway He wanted to. Therefore, it was NOT necessary that Mary had to be concieved sinless in order for Jesus to inherit a sinless human nature. Carry that logic back one generation and Mary’s parents have to be born immaculate also because if not, then Mary inherits a sinful nature from her parents. So where does one draw the line and say here is where the miracle occurred? Your logic is thus overly simplistic not to mentioin faulty plus it is theologically wanting in that you place a restriction on a God who has no restrictions.

You don’ seem to be engaging with my argument at all. I just told you that mary’s parents DO NOT have to be sinless because mary is NOT God. Mary CAN be redeemed. God CAN NOT be redeemed. It’s quite simple - unless you are being deliberately obtuse and dishonest.

Your argument that God could have “dealt with” sin anywway He wanted to, fails to explain anything, or engage with the argument… If Jesus inherited a sinful hman nature from Mary, He would have been sinful, which is contrary to the very nature of God. At the incarnation He inherited REAL humanity, which was either sinful if it came from a sinful Mary, or sinless, if it came from a sinless Mary.

In addition, I find your ideas to be similar to those of Protestants who claim that God USED Mary. For when you say it was necessary for Mary to have no sin so Jesus would inherit a non sinful nature that is why God made her sinless you make Mary nothing more than a sex object for God. Mary then becomes a tooll, something to be used for another purpose. I find that idea to be morally disgusting and theologically repugnant. God is a just God. He rewards those who do His will just as He punishes those who don’t. Mary said yes to the will of God and her Immaculate Conception was her reward.

I don’t see why it is repugnant for God to want a mother free of Original Sin and its stain. Catholic theology teaches that God chose Mary from the beginning of time. That was why she was made free from sin. He knew she was the woman to bear His son. That does not mean she was not free to choose and reject God’s plan - just as Adam and Eve were without original sin, and did just that.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the transmission of Original sin is a mystery.

It is true that God could have made Jesus’ humanity to be just like pre-fall humanity with Mary being a sinner.

If God had done that could it still be said that Jesus derived His humanity from His mother?

Was it necessary that Jesus derive His humanity from His mother? I don’t know IF it was necessary but let me ask this question–even though God COULD HAVE done it a different way–was it FITTING that Jesus derive His humanity from His mother Mary? I say certainly yes!

Was it FITTING that Jesus take our humanity that post-fall had to work for a living–a humanity that hungered, thirst, and would shed tears? Again I say yes!

So I would agree that when anyone says that a certain thing is necessary for God to do or not do is probably wrong for with God things that may seem impossible are indeed possible.

I just happen to think that the way that God did indeed choose to do it–the Immaculate Conception insured that Jesus’ humanity would indeed be pre-fall in regards to sin and post-fall in everything not regarding sin and that He did in fact derive His humanity from His mother Mary.

I also believe that since God could accomplish ALL those things in the Immaculate Conception of Mary that there was not a reason for Mary’s mother to have been Immaculately conceived.

I believe that Fullness of grace was given to Mary BEFORE any transmission of original sin could occur and since that was the case Mary’s mother did not have to be Immaculately conceived.

Mary’s Fullness of grace or sanctifying grace nullified any transmission of original sin thus giving Jesus’ humanity its pre-fall nature but it did not nullify OTHER limitations of our humanity that came post-fall that do not relate to sin–those limitations of humanity not related to sin Jesus SHARED with Mary’s mother.

I really do believe that the key to the Imaculate Conception is -even if it wasn’t necessary-- that Jesus as the scriptures say-- in His humanity shared with us in everything except sin.

The ultimate asnwer to why Mary’s mother wasn’t Immaculately conceived is that God chose not to do so.

The Immaculate Conception might not be the ONLY way that God could act but it is the way He did indeed act.

Who can argue with the ways of God?

 

[Axion]

The thing is hat Jesus HAD to be a man, and descendant of Adam for His sacrifice to be of value to men. This was established by the early fathers in opposition to Gnosticism. Jesus had to be fully God for His sacrifice to be great enough to be able to redeem the world. And He had to be fully man, descended from Adam, for His sarifice to be applicable in redeeming humanity. Jesus’s Kingship of Israel is also validated in the Bble through His right of descent through Adam and David - a real human descent.

 

[inkaneer]

You don’ seem to be engaging with my argument at all. I just told you that mary’s parents DO NOT have to be sinless because mary is NOT God. Mary CAN be redeemed. God CAN NOT be redeemed. It’s quite simple - unless you are being deliberately obtuse and dishonest.]/QUOTE]

Well you are correct I am not engaging in your argument because your basic premise is wrong. Basically you are saying that Jesus needed Mary to be sinless so He would not inherit a sinful nature. But applying that same logic to Mary then in order for her to not have a sinful nature to pass on to Jesus both of her parents had to be immaculately concieved. Jesus did not need Mary to be sinless. Get rid of that “need” stuff. Dod does not “need” anything to do His will.
Axion;7078636:

Your argument that God could have “dealt with” sin anywway He wanted to, fails to explain anything, or engage with the argument… If Jesus inherited a sinful hman nature from Mary, He would have been sinful, which is contrary to the very nature of God. At the incarnation He inherited REAL humanity, which was either sinful if it came from a sinful Mary, or sinless, if it came from a sinless Mary.

It really doesn’t have to explain anything other than all things are possible when dealing with an All Powerful God. You are trying to reason with a finite mind the infinite power of God. You can’t. The Incarnation is a miracle that God worked. He was not limited to doing it just one way.

I don’t see why it is repugnant for God to want a mother free of Original Sin and its stain. Catholic theology teaches that God chose Mary from the beginning of time. That was why she was made free from sin. He knew she was the woman to bear His son. That does not mean she was not free to choose and reject God’s plan - just as Adam and Eve were without original sin, and did just that.

Again you are changing what I said to something I did not say. I asked you before not to do it and now I am telling you not to do it. I did not say it was, “repugnant for God to want a mother free of Original Sin and its stain.” What I said was:

"…I find your ideas to be similar to those of Protestants who claim that God USED Mary. For when you say it was necessary for Mary to have no sin so Jesus would inherit a non sinful nature that is why God made her sinless you make Mary nothing more than a sex object for God. Mary then becomes a tool, something to be used for another purpose. **I find that idea to be morally disgusting and theologically repugnant **

Do you see what I find to be reugnant? Let me spell it out for you, Its your idea that God “needed” Mary and used her as one does a tool. That is what I find repugnant and will add, bordering on blasphemy.

 

[Axion]

Well you are correct I am not engaging in your argument because your basic premise is wrong. Basically you are saying that Jesus needed Mary to be sinless so He would not inherit a sinful nature. But applying that same logic to Mary then in order for her to not have a sinful nature to pass on to Jesus both of her parents had to be immaculately concieved. Jesus did not need Mary to be sinless. Get rid of that “need” stuff. Dod does not “need” anything to do His will.

I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand. or maybe i’ts that you are so busy trying to be clever, you neglect to read what others are explaining. It is really quite simple.

MARY is HUMAN. Mary CAN BE REDEEMED, like any otther human. Get it?
Threfore Mary does not need sinless parents.

JESUS is DIVINE. The Divine can NOT be Redeemed. Jesus cannot be sinful and in need of redemption. Therefore Jesus NEEDS sinless parents as origins for BOTH sides of His nature. He has ONE PERSONHOOD, if the human part of that personhood is sinful, the whole person id tainted with sin.

It really doesn’t have to explain anything other than all things are possible when dealing with an All Powerful God. You are trying to reason with a finite mind the infinite power of God. You can’t. The Incarnation is a miracle that God worked. He was not limited to doing it just one way.

You are the one laying down the law, denying that Jesus needed sinless parents.

Yes. God could have redeemed humanity in some other way than the incarnation But having chosen to become incarnate as a man, He HAD to be free of sin from both sides of His heritage. Hence His mother had to be sinless. Yhis is why the early fathers were so certain Mary was sinless at the time of the Inarnation. God cannot be formed from a sinful source.

Again you are changing what I said to something I did not say. I asked you before not to do it and now I am telling you not to do it. I did not say it was, “repugnant for God to want a mother free of Original Sin and its stain.” What I said was:

"…I find your ideas to be similar to those of Protestants who claim that God USED Mary. For when you say it was necessary for Mary to have no sin so Jesus would inherit a non sinful nature that is why God made her sinless you make Mary nothing more than a sex object for God. Mary then becomes a tool, something to be used for another purpose. **I find that idea to be morally disgusting and theologically repugnant **

Do you see what I find to be reugnant? Let me spell it out for you, Its your idea that God “needed” Mary and used her as one does a tool. That is what I find repugnant and will add, bordering on blasphemy.

What you said was actually worse than my version of it,

And I never said that Mary was a tool. So stop changing what i said to something I didn’t say. **I never said Mary was a tool or a sex-object. so what you fin morally disgusting and theologically repugnant is a spawn of your own mind. **So calm down, and try to introduce some reason to your posts.

NOTHING about the Mother of Jesus needing to be sinless makes her a tool. She had as much freedom of choice as if she were a sinner. so enough of that ridiculous argument.

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand. or maybe i’ts that you are so busy trying to be clever, you neglect to read what others are explaining. It is really quite simple.

MARY is HUMAN. Mary CAN BE REDEEMED, like any otther human. Get it?
Threfore Mary does not need sinless parents.

But Axion. Mary wasn’t redeemed as we are. She was created sinless, as Adam and Eve were. John the Baptist was redeemed in the womb of Elizabeth (he was filled with the Holy Spirit even in the womb) perhaps, but Mary was created without Sin. I don’t think that would mean she received redemption.

And many people on this thread have clearly indicated that Jesus DID NOT NEED to be born of a sinless woman, but God chose this to happen.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Well you are correct I am not engaging in your argument because your basic premise is wrong. Basically you are saying that Jesus needed Mary to be sinless so He would not inherit a sinful nature. But applying that same logic to Mary then in order for her to not have a sinful nature to pass on to Jesus both of her parents had to be immaculately concieved. Jesus did not need Mary to be sinless. Get rid of that “need” stuff. Dod does not “need” anything to do His will.

I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand. or maybe i’ts that you are so busy trying to be clever, you neglect to read what others are explaining. It is really quite simple.

MARY is HUMAN. Mary CAN BE REDEEMED, like any otther human. Get it?
Threfore Mary does not need sinless parents.

JESUS is DIVINE. The Divine can NOT be Redeemed. Jesus cannot be sinful and in need of redemption. Therefore Jesus NEEDS sinless parents as origins for BOTH sides of His nature. He has ONE PERSONHOOD, if the human part of that personhood is sinful, the whole person id tainted with sin.

Oh I understand better than you think I do. And I am not trying to be clever but I am wondering why you choose to be obtuse. Sure Mary could have been redeemed like any other human but she wasn’t. She wasn’t because Mary was unique, she was not like any other human being for no other human being played such a significant and crucial role in the plan of God to redeem mankind that we know as the Incarnation. And for her willingness to participate she was rewarded by being freed of the stain of sin. She was redeemed but her redemption was different than other humans. Her redemption was in anticipation of her saying Yes to God and bringing Jesus into the world to save mankind. As such she participated in both your redemption as well as mine. But by this unique reward bestowed on Mary of being redeemed at her conception, God the Father thereby gave His only begotten Son the best possible human mother He could have. You do believe God does reward those who do His will don’t you? You do believe what Mt 7:9-11 says about God the Father giving good things?

Your problem is a two fold one. First you placed a requirement to limit what an all powerful God can do. Making up rules that God has to abide by is legalism to the extreme. Like I said before, it borders on blasphemy. Second you fail to see this flaw in your logic or maybe you do but don’t care.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
It really doesn’t have to explain anything other than all things are possible when dealing with an All Powerful God. You are trying to reason with a finite mind the infinite power of God. You can’t. The Incarnation is a miracle that God worked. He was not limited to doing it just one way.

You are the one laying down the law, denying that Jesus needed sinless parents.

Yes. God could have redeemed humanity in some other way than the incarnation But having chosen to become incarnate as a man, He HAD to be free of sin from both sides of His heritage. Hence His mother had to be sinless. This is why the early fathers were so certain Mary was sinless at the time of the Inarnation. God cannot be formed from a sinful source.

Now you are being absurd. How did I lay down any law? I maintained [and still do] that God, being an all powerful God, has no limitations that is within His nature. God cannot lie but lying is not within God’s nature is it? That is not a law. It is one of the attributes of God accepted by all christianity with the possible exception of you. As for the early Fathers show me one of the early Fathers who claimed Mary was sinless for the reason you stated. That is [your words]:

“He HAD to be free of sin from both sides of His heritage. Hence His mother had to be sinless.”

I do not know one early church writer who ever made that claim. So you will have to produce them. Instead, what I see the early church writers doing is taking their clue from the angel’s greeting to Mary, “Hail full of Grace…” To the question of how can Mary be a sinner and “full of grace” at the same time, they answered that she couldn’t. Therefore, if she was “full of grace”, they reasoned she had to be sinless.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Again you are changing what I said to something I did not say. I asked you before not to do it and now I am telling you not to do it. I did not say it was, “repugnant for God to want a mother free of Original Sin and its stain.” What I said was:

"…I find your ideas to be similar to those of Protestants who claim that God USED Mary. For when you say it was necessary for Mary to have no sin so Jesus would inherit a non sinful nature that is why God made her sinless you make Mary nothing more than a sex object for God. Mary then becomes a tool, something to be used for another purpose. I find that idea to be morally disgusting and theologically repugnant

Do you see what I find to be reugnant? Let me spell it out for you, Its your idea that God “needed” Mary and used her as one does a tool. That is what I find repugnant and will add, bordering on blasphemy.

What you said was actually worse than my version of it,

And I never said that Mary was a tool. So stop changing what i said to something I didn’t say. **I never said Mary was a tool or a sex-object. so what you fin morally disgusting and theologically repugnant is a spawn of your own mind. **So calm down, and try to introduce some reason to your posts.

NOTHING about the Mother of Jesus needing to be sinless makes her a tool. She had as much freedom of choice as if she were a sinner. so enough of that ridiculous argument.

You did not use the word tool but the idea conveyed by you was that God needed Mary to be sinless so He made her that way to suit His own purpose. He just used Mary. The definition of a tool is:

1. something [someone] that aids in accomplishing a task
2. an instrument necessary in performing an operation
3. a means to an end

And ‘tool’ is exactly the idea you conveyed in that:

1. Mary sinlessness aided in accomplishing a task for God
2. Mary’s sinlessness was necessary in performing the Incarnation
3. Mary sinlessness was a means to an end

I just carried your idea out to its natural conclusion and you didn’t like what your own logic
produced. Well, neither did I.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I am debating some Protestants, and they countered my argument for the Immaculate Conception of Mary by claiming that, according to the same reasoning, the mother of Mary too should have been born without sin. What arguments can I use to refute that claim?

Thanks a lot.

This is NOT intended as an answer from the Church, and I haven’t even studied it. I offer this more as a memo to self than anything else to look into it in the Catholic Encyclopedia, (an excellent resource for this kind of thing generally, by the way).

Do you know that Mary’s mother was not immaculately conceived, or her mother, all the way back to the Eve’s first daughter or granddaughter? I KNOW that the Church has declared that Mary was immaculately conceived, and it has even declared this to be so as a dogma of the Church, but the existence of a known fact doesn’t in and of itself negate the existence of a fact which has not been proven to the Churchs’ satisfaction, or perhaps never even investigated.

It’s like I was told when I was learning about reading scripture. The scriptures don’t tell us everything we WANT to know. They tell us everything we NEED to know. I am going to guess that the answer to your friends’ question isn’t specifically addressed, (though perhaps it is). But it’s probably just not theogogically necessary, or even provable from scripture and tradition that anyone beyond Mary was born immaculately.

I’ll read the thread now, and see how wrong I am ;-), then go do research.

 

[thevoiceofone]

Mary, of course, did not *need *to be free of sin to accomplish God’s plan. God can do all things. So, then, why was Mary born free of sin, and why were her parents not? Her parents clearly did not need to be. The “shot from the hip” on page 1 is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that case. If Mary’s parents needed to be free of sin, then you would have to follow that logic back to the beginning of the family line, and the beginning of the family line (Adam and Eve) caused sin to enter the world, so there is no point in following that logic. Mary’s parents were surely saintly folks, but they were not perfect. The argument must return then to Mary herself, which is somewhat off-topic.

Did Mary *need *to be free of sin to bear the Lord? Maybe. Did the Lord *need *Mary to be free of sin? No, certainly not. The Lord may do as He sees fit. He did see fit to give Mary a sin-free nature. Why? The Bible does not explain why, the Bible only states the fact that she was “Full of Grace,” which is the only valid argument to use against most Protetants, being a biblical reference, as was stated in an earlier post. Extra-biblical teachings are usually dismissed, no matter how valid or logical they may be. The title of “Full of Grace” itself tends to be argued, also. My best friend is a Pentacostal and he once stated in an argument about the Eucharist, that all of the Bible should be taken literally “except that part” in John 6 about eating His flesh. How logical is that? So, arguing Mary’s nature, similarly, can be very difficult against one who has been taught to reject Catholic teaching, in general.

I didn’t notice anyone else bringing it up before now, so I will also add to the mystery of God’s plan for our redemption thru Jesus Christ, that Jesus becomes “the new Adam” to mankind, as explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, to make our own resurrection to Heaven possible. If Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary is the new Eve. Adam and Eve were born without sin. Jesus and Mary were born without sin. The Laws given by God to the Jews in regards to sacrifice explain how God wants sacrifices to be given. That is how the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary was meant to be… he was the Spotless Lamb. There are those that lose their faith over questioning why Jesus had to die that way; they reason that God could not have willed such a thing. The same folks will use such reason to deny the existence of Hell and other such things. The point I’m getting at is that some of you are arguing whether or not Mary *needed *to be free of sin, and, depending on your perspective, you could say yes or no to that question. What I mean by saying that:

1. Was it necessary for Mary to be born free of sin because of some limitation of God to complete His plan? - No, certainly not.
2. Was it necessary for Mary to be born free of sin because Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from His mother? - No, because that is the same illogical reasoning for thinking that Mary’s parents would have to have been born immaculately also, and so forth. *If *Mary had not been immaculately conceived, then Jesus certainly would have been, no matter what Mary’s nature could have been otherwise. Mary’s sin-free nature is not the reason Jesus was born with a sin-free nature. That can not be possible. To say that Jesus *could not *have been born without a sinful nature if His mother had not been free of sin herself just doesn’t make sense. It’s a contradiction to Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
3. Was it necessary for Mary to be born free of sin to accomplish the will of God? - Yes. Why? The simple answer is because she *was *free of sin (full of grace), and she would not have been if it was not the will of God for her to be that way.

As to the *yes *of point 3 (above), the more complicated answer(s) would take too much off-topic time to point out. I have no trouble accepting the doctine of the Immaculate Conception because of my faith in the Catholic Church. For those non-Catholics, there are plenty of logical reasons to accept that Mary was completely free of sin, besides the literal interpetation of her title, “*Full *of Grace.” Maybe it was so that people would not have cause to argue Jesus’s spotlessness based upon some potential flaw of His mother. Maybe it was so that she might be the perfect guide and role model for the Son as a child. Maybe it was so that God was pleased to grant her that special gift for a reason we simply can not understand.

All I can say with absolute certainty is that it was the will of God that Mary be free from the stain of original sin. And, there is no need whatsoever for Mary’s parents to be as such to accomplish that.

 

[NotWorthy]

I didn’t notice anyone else bringing it up before now, so I will also add to the mystery of God’s plan for our redemption thru Jesus Christ, that Jesus becomes “the new Adam” to mankind, as explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, to make our own resurrection to Heaven possible. If Jesus is the new Adam, then Mary is the new Eve. Adam and Eve were born without sin. Jesus and Mary were born without sin.

:doh2:I forgot all about that! Great point!

All I can say with absolute certainty is that it was the will of God that Mary be free from the stain of original sin. And, there is no need whatsoever for Mary’s parents to be as such to accomplish that.

Although I clipped off the entirety of your post, I wanted to tell you that it was spot-on! Very good post and very good summary!!!