Would Jesus have died a natural death had He not been crucified?

[JerryZ]

A priest and I got into a debate once about this topic. I maintained that had Jesus not died on the cross, He would have died a natural death in same way we all do. After all, He was like us entirely, except for sin. The priest, who is deeply into the Father of the Church, said no. He wouldn’t have died.

I say yes because Jesus did age; He went from being an infant, to 12, to 33. Why would this not continue? The priest, on the other hand, maintained that Jesus would not have died and was incorruptible since He had none of the effects of original sin.

I said, “Incorruptible? Completely? Do you think Jesus had any cavities? After all, if nothing in his body would erode, surely He would have had perfect teeth according to your thinking.”

The priest thought for a minute, and then was forced–for the sake of being consistent–that Jesus in fact had no cavities.

What do you say? Would Jesus have died a natural death had He not been crucified?

I think you totally underestimate Jesus and God.

Do you remember the miracle of Lazarus?

Jesus was not in the same town Lazarus lived he was preaching somewhere else.
Lazarus was a friend same as his sisters.
He fell ill and his sisters sent a messanger to tell Jesus the news asking for His return.
Jesus sorta kinda allowed some time to pass before returning to the town were Lazarus lived, when he got there as always a multitude both followed Him and alerted the townsfolk the “Rabbi” had arrived.
The sister run to meet Jesus and tell him that it is too late for lazarus has been dead for 3 days.
Jesus tells them to take him to his tumb, but the sisters rebuke that Lazarus already “smells” (The body had started decomposing)
He undeterred gets near the tumb and calls out to Lazarus to wake and walk which he does to the consternation wonder and amazement of everyone.

NOW!

If Jesus can resucitate a putrefact body to full health you man of little faith don’t believe that had he wanted he could have lived forever and never suffered a caries?

 

[Nan_S]

That’s interesting, but not definitive.

In the Holy Bible that’s as definitive a statement about Jesus’ everyday appearance as you’re going to get. Except for the image on the Shroud of Turin, we have no other description of Jesus anywhere.

JerryZ, Sure, Jesus could have had a perfect body, but that would have drawn unwanted and misguided attention to him. Jesus wanted ordinary people to identify with Him, and that meant he had to both BE ordinary and LOOK ordinary. He had to hunger, thirst, sweat (and stink), and deal with bad hair days. He had to have experienced childhood diseases and been scarred from whatever version of the pox happened in those days, because if he had NOT been scarred people would have thought he was “blessed by God” and not like them after all. Jesus’ message was all about how ordinary people can lift themselves up to live the lives God intended, by showing them personally.

King Saul had a near-perfect appearance. King David was described as a handsome youth. Neither of those approaches were the ones Jesus took.

 

[JerryZ]

In the Holy Bible that’s as definitive a statement about Jesus’ everyday appearance as you’re going to get. Except for the image on the Shroud of Turin, we have no other description of Jesus anywhere.

JerryZ, Sure, Jesus could have had a perfect body, but that would have drawn unwanted and misguided attention to him. Jesus wanted ordinary people to identify with Him, and that meant he had to both BE ordinary and LOOK ordinary. He had to hunger, thirst, sweat (and stink), and deal with bad hair days. He had to have experienced childhood diseases and been scarred from whatever version of the pox happened in those days, because if he had NOT been scarred people would have thought he was “blessed by God” and not like them after all. Jesus’ message was all about how ordinary people can lift themselves up to live the lives God intended, by showing them personally.

King Saul had a near-perfect appearance. King David was described as a handsome youth. Neither of those approaches were the ones Jesus took.

uhm I am sorry but that is not what Jesus is about! He came to earth to atone for the original sin that was commited by our forefathers and that burdened all the human race from the beginning.
For that reason He HAD to die.
Did he suffer hunger, cold, hot? Yes, he was a Human Being albeit a special one.
Spotless perfect and innocent.
I wish I could have taken His place but I understand that I would NOT be worthy to pay the price, only a perfect sinless sacrifice was required to atone for OUR sins and God provided the perfect sacrifice in Himself.
I humored you replaying to the what is scenario of the OP question, but this is the real bottom line.

 

[dshix]

In the Holy Bible that’s as definitive a statement about Jesus’ everyday appearance as you’re going to get. Except for the image on the Shroud of Turin, we have no other description of Jesus anywhere.

JerryZ, Sure, Jesus could have had a perfect body, but that would have drawn unwanted and misguided attention to him. Jesus wanted ordinary people to identify with Him, and that meant he had to both BE ordinary and LOOK ordinary. He had to hunger, thirst, sweat (and stink), and deal with bad hair days. He had to have experienced childhood diseases and been scarred from whatever version of the pox happened in those days, because if he had NOT been scarred people would have thought he was “blessed by God” and not like them after all. Jesus’ message was all about how ordinary people can lift themselves up to live the lives God intended, by showing them personally.

King Saul had a near-perfect appearance. King David was described as a handsome youth. Neither of those approaches were the ones Jesus took.

Haha, it is indeed as definitive a statement as you are going to get. That doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t definitive.

Until you get a doctrine announced by the Papacy that Jesus was ugly, I’m not going to partake in speculation.

uhm I am sorry but that is not what Jesus is about! He came to earth to atone for the original sin that was commited by our forefathers and that burdened all the human race from the beginning.
For that reason He HAD to die.
Did he suffer hunger, cold, hot? Yes, he was a Human Being albeit a special one.
Spotless perfect and innocent.
I wish I could have taken His place but I understand that I would NOT be worthy to pay the price, only a perfect sinless sacrifice was required to atone for OUR sins and God provided the perfect sacrifice in Himself.
I humored you replaying to the what is scenario of the OP question, but this is the real bottom line.

Jerry, I agree, but the subject of this thread is purely theoretical, so the discussion must go on until it has reached a resolution.

 

[Nan_S]

uhm I am sorry but that is not what Jesus is about! He came to earth to atone for the original sin that was commited by our forefathers and that burdened all the human race from the beginning.
For that reason He HAD to die.
Did he suffer hunger, cold, hot? Yes, he was a Human Being albeit a special one.
Spotless perfect and innocent.
I wish I could have taken His place but I understand that I would NOT be worthy to pay the price, only a perfect sinless sacrifice was required to atone for OUR sins and God provided the perfect sacrifice in Himself.
I humored you replaying to the what is scenario of the OP question, but this is the real bottom line.

I never said Jesus was ONLY about uplifting the downtrodden. However, since this is a forum thread with limited space, that was the only point I chose to make on that post.

Of course Jesus was here to redeem all mankind, just as you say. But if dying on the cross to atone for our sins was only thing He was here for, as you seem to suggest, He wouldn’t have spent three years preaching and teaching first. He could have had the whole crucifixion and ressurection part done in a couple of months.

I think it better to say that Jesus was about both uplifting the downtrodden and paying the price for our sins, but even that is incomplete. You have to add in rebuking the authorities, healing the sick, welcoming the Gentiles, casting out the devil, starting a church, teaching future leaders… and more…

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to Pope John Paul II, fallen human nature lacks sanctifying grace:

“It is ‘fallen’ since it is deprived of sanctifying grace, and also of other gifts, which in the state of original justice constituted the perfection of this nature. Here we are dealing not only with immortality and exemption from many sufferings, gifts lost because of sin, but also with interior dispositions of the reason and will, that is, with habitual energies of the reason and will. As a consequence of original sin the whole man, body and soul, has been thrown into confusion”… (The State of Man in Fallen Nature)

If Christ had a fallen human nature, He would have lacked the state of grace. The Author of grace cannot lack grace in any way, so the claim that Jesus had a fallen human nature is false.

The problem with your claim here is against the Christology declared in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. You treat Christ as if he is only human or he is only divine. He is both. His human self is everything like us, thus it is fallen and yes it is devoid of Grace. BUT, he also has his divine self, which is grace itself. To understand the 2 natures of Christ, you need to look at each nature separately first. Especially with his divine nature, it is easy as it pre-existed the human nature. But his human nature is not that hard, simply look in the mirror. God came to be like us in everything. The fusion of the 2 natures of Christ is actually the archetype on how we will be redeemed. That is why we call the Eucharist as “Communion”. When we are in Communion with the divinity of Christ, we also are able to do the things his own humanity did. Live sinless.

Pope John Paul II is correct, human nature lacks sanctifying grace. But don’t forget that Jesus Christ is both human and divine. Your objection is coming from the point of view that Jesus’ humanity is by itself and separated from his divinity. If it was separate, then yes his human nature would have been devoid of grace much like everyone of us.

The immortality of the body is also a gift lost by original sin. So Jesus, the Author of Life, was not subject to death. He died only because He willed, in both His human and Divine wills, to accept death because of sins, to redeem us from original sin. But He could not rescue us from original sin and personal sin if He had either type of sin.

No. He could not have rescued us from our fallen nature if he didn’t have a fallen human nature. This is the teaching of the Fathers in the First Millennium, and I have not found anything in contemporary Roman Catholic teaching to say otherwise. As St. Maximos the Confessor said, only what is assumed is what is saved. If Jesus did not assume a fallen nature, if he did not assume a human will, then none of those from us would have been saved. You seem to be coming from the mistaken notion that sin can taint the source of all Holiness. Darkness never conquers light. As long as light is there, there can never be darkness.

Also, the Council of Trent taught that original sin is inherited by propagation. But Mary did not have original sin to pass one to her Divine Son Jesus. Christ was therefore free from original sin, and all its effects.

Then this would have been contrary to the teachings of earlier Ecumenical Councils.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, you are missing the point as to why I bring up the Immaculate Conception.

I believe I can now assume that you somewhat agree with this doctrine, although you have used much hidden language to do so.

I believe it will detract from the discussion and has really no bearing on anything I have brought forward so far. I just think you will use whatever answer I give to keep driving your point without making any other legitimate argument to the discussion.

So we come to this problem: If Mary was perfect (having to do with sin), conceived without sin and without the effects of sin, what in the world would make you think that Jesus DID have sin, when he was conceived by Mary and the Holy Spirit?

I never said Jesus had sin. I said Jesus had a fallen human nature the same as everyone of us.

Are you suggesting by all this that Jesus was less perfect than Mary?

I am suggesting, as taught by the Fathers, that the human nature of Jesus and Mary and all of us are of the same nature.

This is a farcical suggestion, so I will not pin it on you. But you HAVE been suggesting that Jesus did have the effects of sin and a fallen nature. How can you reconcile this with the fact that Mary did not?

I’m not. Mary had the same human nature as everyone of us. She died. Despite being grace-filled at conception. She didn’t receive a different nature than us. I think a better way to explain this is that Mary was baptized by God at the moment of her conception.

And, please don’t evade this question like you did the one on the Immaculate Conception. It’s such a waste of time.

So stop asking about it, it is not important on this matter. You are the one wasting time here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

uhm I am sorry but that is not what Jesus is about! He came to earth to atone for the original sin that was commited by our forefathers and that burdened all the human race from the beginning.
For that reason He HAD to die.
Did he suffer hunger, cold, hot? Yes, he was a Human Being albeit a special one.
Spotless perfect and innocent.
I wish I could have taken His place but I understand that I would NOT be worthy to pay the price, only a perfect sinless sacrifice was required to atone for OUR sins and God provided the perfect sacrifice in Himself.
I humored you replaying to the what is scenario of the OP question, but this is the real bottom line.

Don’t you think this makes God a masochist? If he could just forgive original sin, why doesn’t he? Why does he demand that his own son take on human flesh to be tortured and suffer death? Plus, if indeed the Immaculate Concepcion preserved Mary from Original Sin, why doesn’t he just immaculately conceive everyone of us?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

 

[dshix]

Wow. That was slick. I’ve never seen someone edge their way out in such a nonchalant manner.

I believe it will detract from the discussion and has really no bearing on anything I have brought forward so far. I just think you will use whatever answer I give to keep driving your point without making any other legitimate argument to the discussion.

It will not detract from the discussion. As a matter of fact, the reason you are evading it is because you know that this issue is the precise one which you must evade in order to not lose this discussion.

I never said Jesus had sin. I said Jesus had a fallen human nature the same as everyone of us.

If Jesus was born with a fallen nature, you suggest that he was born with Original Sin; there’s just no other way to have it. Mary did not have a fallen nature, so why would Jesus?

I am suggesting, as taught by the Fathers, that the human nature of Jesus and Mary and all of us are of the same nature.

Precisely. Indicating that Mary had a fallen nature, meaning that the effects of sin had remained within her, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was false. As you know it is true, your claim is false.

By the way, you often speak of “The Fathers.” Could you please copy/paste actual text into a post and show us the actual words that support your claim?

I’m not. Mary had the same human nature as everyone of us. She died. Despite being grace-filled at conception. She didn’t receive a different nature than us. I think a better way to explain this is that Mary was baptized by God at the moment of her conception.

She was a human just like any of us, except that she had no sin, and therefore was free from the effects of sin. “She died” is still controversial, it will distract from the conversation if you go on this tangent. Mary received the same nature as us, but did not receive our fallen nature. She was as fully human and yet as fully sinless as Adam and Eve were before the fall.

But now we come to an interesting part. You say: “I think a better way to explain this is that Mary was baptized by God at the moment of her conception.”

THIS is directly against the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. God created Mary directly, FREE from sin. Not at any moment of time did she have sin. In fact, if she had been baptized as you said, she would still have concupiscence.

So stop asking about it, it is not important on this matter. You are the one wasting time here.

Constantine, you do not get to drive this discussion. The easiest way to get out of an opponent’s argument is by stating it is not relevant, and that is exactly what you are trying to do.

And by the way, if you think that this topic is irrelevant or unnecessary, I suggest that you just answer all of my queries in one single post, and get it over with.  If your answers are correct and satisfactory, I will concede the point and we can move on.  This is really dragging out too long.

Here are the things I wish you to answer:


*  Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?
*  If you do, do you concede that Mary was free from sin and the effects of sin? (This includes original sin and concupiscence.  We will lay aside the matter of her death for now.)
*  If you do agree with the last point, then surely you agree that Jesus was born without sin and the stain of sin.  After all, he was conceived by Mary and the Holy Spirit.
*  Lastly, if you agree with all of the above, how can you reconcile with the idea that Jesus had a fallen nature/could have sinned if his divine will didn't keep him in check?

 

[dshix]

Don’t you think this makes God a masochist? If he could just forgive original sin, why doesn’t he? Why does he demand that his own son take on human flesh to be tortured and suffer death? Plus, if indeed the Immaculate Concepcion preserved Mary from Original Sin, why doesn’t he just immaculately conceive everyone of us?

Were those rhetorical questions or do you truly not know the answers?

 

[dshix]

Haha! This must be fun to watch from a third-person point of view.

:slapfight::crutches::blackeye:

 

[dshix]

No. He could not have rescued us from our fallen nature if he didn’t have a fallen human nature. This is the teaching of the Fathers in the First Millennium, and I have not found anything in contemporary Roman Catholic teaching to say otherwise. As St. Maximos the Confessor said, only what is assumed is what is saved. If Jesus did not assume a fallen nature, if he did not assume a human will, then none of those from us would have been saved. You seem to be coming from the mistaken notion that sin can taint the source of all Holiness. Darkness never conquers light. As long as light is there, there can never be darkness.

I actually have to go to mass now but I had to reply to this.
Jesus didn’t have to assume a fallen nature to give grace to us by the Redemption. You again cite Church Fathers, but could you actually copy/paste a text from a Council that stated this.

Ron Conte;10030225:

Also, the Council of Trent taught that original sin is inherited by propagation. But Mary did not have original sin to pass one to her Divine Son Jesus. Christ was therefore free from original sin, and all its effects.

Then this would have been contrary to the teachings of earlier Ecumenical Councils.

The later decisions of Councils hold precedence over the older Councils. More is discovered and revealed in the Church over time, so the later the Council is the more accurate we can assume it to be.

So, Christ was free from original sin and all its effects.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wow. That was slick. I’ve never seen someone edge their way out in such a nonchalant manner.

It will not detract from the discussion. As a matter of fact, the reason you are evading it is because you know that this issue is the precise one which you must evade in order to not lose this discussion.

No, there is no way I’m losing this discussion because I am the only one who has been giving out historical facts after historical fact. Unlike you which is just baseless polemic after ad hominem after strawman.

If Jesus was born with a fallen nature, you suggest that he was born with Original Sin; there’s just no other way to have it. Mary did not have a fallen nature, so why would Jesus?

As per the dogma of the Immaculate Concepcion, Mary had the same nature as we did. Unaltered. Maybe try reading it sometime instead of presuming what is in it?

Precisely. Indicating that Mary had a fallen nature, meaning that the effects of sin had remained within her, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was false. As you know it is true, your claim is false.

Obviously you do not know what the dogma says. It is clear there that Mary’s nature still is the same human nature as we have.

By the way, you often speak of “The Fathers.” Could you please copy/paste actual text into a post and show us the actual words that support your claim?

I already did a couple of pages ago. Please back read, I don’t need to keep re-posting the same thing over and over again.

She was a human just like any of us, except that she had no sin, and therefore was free from the effects of sin. “She died” is still controversial, it will distract from the conversation if you go on this tangent. Mary received the same nature as us, but did not receive our fallen nature. She was as fully human and yet as fully sinless as Adam and Eve were before the fall.

She died isn’t controversial. It is what the Church actually believed. No Pope has ever made the claim that she didn’t die. There are no theological books that claim that she didn’t die. This is an urban legend at best. Unless YOU can make a proof to your claim. You keep telling me to “prove it”, yet you have never proved anything in your claim. How about practicing what you preach and you prove this baseless claim which you make over and over again.

But now we come to an interesting part. You say: “I think a better way to explain this is that Mary was baptized by God at the moment of her conception.”

THIS is directly against the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. God created Mary directly, FREE from sin. Not at any moment of time did she have sin. In fact, if she had been baptized as you said, she would still have concupiscence.

What is the effect of baptism? It removes Original Sin but it does not change our nature. That is exactly what happened to Mary. I am not she was actually baptized, but the effect of what happened to her is akin to baptism.

Constantine, you do not get to drive this discussion. The easiest way to get out of an opponent’s argument is by stating it is not relevant, and that is exactly what you are trying to do.

I’m not getting out of anything. I have offered a ton of proof on this thread and you have offered none. You don’t get to say you are right because at this point every claim you have made has no basis in anything at all. PROVE IT!

And by the way, if you think that this topic is irrelevant or unnecessary, I suggest that you just answer all of my queries in one single post, and get it over with. If your answers are correct and satisfactory, I will concede the point and we can move on. This is really dragging out too long.

Here are the things I wish you to answer:

• Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?
• If you do, do you concede that Mary was free from sin and the effects of sin? (This includes original sin and concupiscence. We will lay aside the matter of her death for now.)
• If you do agree with the last point, then surely you agree that Jesus was born without sin and the stain of sin. After all, he was conceived by Mary and the Holy Spirit.
• Lastly, if you agree with all of the above, how can you reconcile with the idea that Jesus had a fallen nature/could have sinned if his divine will didn’t keep him in check?

I have already made my replies. How about you start giving substance to your counter claims.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I actually have to go to mass now but I had to reply to this.
Jesus didn’t have to assume a fallen nature to give grace to us by the Redemption. You again cite Church Fathers, but could you actually copy/paste a text from a Council that stated this.

I already did, back read. Maybe read my entire post before arguing.

The later decisions of Councils hold precedence over the older Councils. More is discovered and revealed in the Church over time, so the later the Council is the more accurate we can assume it to be.

So, Christ was free from original sin and all its effects.

LOL, do you seriously believe in this? If a later council can change what an earlier council declared, then our faith today is different from the faith of the Fathers, therefore we believe in something completely different from the Apostles and thus bear a false faith. I’m pretty sure this is not the case, but if your claim is true then you just made the later councils heretical. Because if today’s teaching contradicts the earlier teachings, how do you exactly know which teaching is true? This is something only Protestants come up with.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Mary had some of the effects of fallen humanity and in other respects she didn’t have all the effects of fallen humanity.

She wasn’t free from having to do work like Eve was before the fall. She suffered–her heart was pierced at the crucifixion–Eve didn’t suffer such things of the heart before the fall.

But Mary like Eve before the fall didn’t suffer from concupiscence.

The same things were true about Our Lord’s humanity–He didn’t suffer from concupiscence.

Mary was superior to Eve in that she was “full of grace”. Eve had sanctifying grace but didn’t receive all the graces that Mary did before the fall–that is my opinion–does anyone know if that is true or not?

Our Lord was Divine and possessed the beatific vision always–I do not believe that was true of the Virgin Mary–does anyone know if that is true or not?

Because death comes from sin–neither Mary or our Lord would necessarily have to die.

Our Lord chose to lay down his life–it is my opinion that Mary died because she asked our Lord for this favor so she could share in what He had experienced.

In any event regarding Jesus the question to this post is moot because Jesus was sent to be the savior of the world which required His death and sacrifice.

I do not think that Adam and Eve would have died in Eden if they never sinned–they surely would not have died if they hadn’t sinned and had partaken of the Tree of Life.

I think they also would have been brought back to life if they had refused to sin and if the serpent would have attacked them–all of this would have been conditional on God allowing the serpent to do so as a test of their faith.

I wonder…what is the connection between Jesus and the Tree of Life?

 

[dshix]

LOL, do you seriously believe in this? If a later council can change what an earlier council declared, then our faith today is different from the faith of the Fathers, therefore we believe in something completely different from the Apostles and thus bear a false faith. I’m pretty sure this is not the case, but if your claim is true then you just made the later councils heretical. Because if today’s teaching contradicts the earlier teachings, how do you exactly know which teaching is true? This is something only Protestants come up with.

I only have about five minutes to respond to this, so I decided to reply to the end of your posts.

I did NOT say that a later council can CHANGE what an earlier council said. You see, over time the Church learns more about the mysteries of the Faith, and has a fuller understanding over different things. This changes the disciplines, but not the dogma of the faith.

The councils do not contradict each other; they embellish each other.

As to the Immaculate Conception, it appears that you do not know what it means, so I will have to cite some sources. As I said, I have to leave now, but I’ll be back later today to give you some information.

Mary did not receive our exact state. She received everything but the fallen nature; besides that she was the same as any one of us.

 

[dshix]

Mary had some of the effects of fallen humanity and in other respects she didn’t have all the effects of fallen humanity.

She wasn’t free from having to do work like Eve was before the fall. She suffered–her heart was pierced at the crucifixion–Eve didn’t suffer such things of the heart before the fall.

But Mary like Eve before the fall didn’t suffer from concupiscence.

The same things were true about Our Lord’s humanity–He didn’t suffer from concupiscence.

Mary was superior to Eve in that she was “full of grace”. Eve had sanctifying grace but didn’t receive all the graces that Mary did before the fall–that is my opinion–does anyone know if that is true or not?

Our Lord was Divine and possessed the beatific vision always–I do not believe that was true of the Virgin Mary–does anyone know if that is true or not?

Because death comes from sin–neither Mary or our Lord would necessarily have to die.

Our Lord chose to lay down his life–it is my opinion that Mary died because she asked our Lord for this favor so she could share in what He had experienced.

In any event regarding Jesus the question to this post is moot because Jesus was sent to be the savior of the world which required His death and sacrifice.

I do not think that Adam and Eve would have died in Eden if they never sinned–they surely would not have died if they hadn’t sinned and had partaken of the Tree of Life.

I think they also would have been brought back to life if they had refused to sin and if the serpent would have attacked them–all of this would have been conditional on God allowing the serpent to do so as a test of their faith.

I wonder…what is the connection between Jesus and the Tree of Life?

That’s very true! Much of Mary’s suffering was due to the fact that she lived in a fallen world, and its negative things affected her negatively.

 

[dshix]

I already did, back read. Maybe read my entire post before arguing.

I already did a couple of pages ago. Please back read, I don’t need to keep re-posting the same thing over and over again.

Yes, you have cited the words of councils, but haven’t always clarified what you intended it to mean.
The reason I’m bringing this up is because throughout this thread, I and other have noticed that you misinterpret the teachings of a Saint or Council. Therefore, I want to see exactly which text you think means what to see if you are credible.

 

[dshix]

Ok, I’m back.

The following quote comes from this link.
Catholic Answers Encyclopedia:

I. THE DOCTRINE
In the Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus” of December 8, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin” (Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, 10th ed., n. 1641). The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis, carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin, the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam—from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Savior to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ’s redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred, than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor (Ullathorne, “Immac. Conception”, p. 89). Such is the meaning of the term “Immaculate Conception”.

This, I believe, makes it quite clear that Mary was not “baptised,” as you say, at the moment of her birth. She was born entirely free of sin; period.

This means that she didn’t have Original sin and then was cleansed; she was free from it at the moment of her birth. This took concupiscence out of the equation.