Quick question - immaculate conception?

[~Anastasia~]

I feel kind of dumb for having to ask this. Either I somehow missed the implications in something I was told, or I've somehow developed amnesia of this point. But I need to ask to know for sure, rather than assume.

Does the teaching of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary say that her parents did not conceive her in the normal way, so as to protect her from the stain of "original sin"?

Is the teaching then that she was conceived of the Holy Spirit, as Christ Himself was, just not of a virgin mother?

And is this unique (I'm thinking) to the Catholic Church, though allowed if one wants to hold it as a Lutheran or Orthodox?

Thank you.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

She was conceived the regular way. By a singular action of God she was preserved from the stain of original sin. That's the Roman Catholic teaching.

It's kind of hard to mesh it with the generally accepted Orthodox teaching on original sin. Sometimes our teaching is called 'ancestral sin' to distinguish it from the popular Western teaching.

 

[Cappadocious]

Both Orthodox and Catholics generally believe Joachim and Anna were barren like Sarah and Abraham, Elizabeth and Zachariah. So the Virgin Mary's conception by Joachim and Anna was a wonder, like the conceptions of Isaac and John the Baptist.

Roman Catholics believe that this wonder had to include the prevention of original sin. Orthodox do not believe this was necessary.

 

[prodromos]

The doctrine of the immaculate conception makes Mary the great exception, rather than the great example.

 

[Catherineanne]

The doctrine of the immaculate conception makes Mary the great exception, rather than the great example.

Would that not be even more true of the Lord himself? And yet we are still happy to follow his example.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks, everyone. It was something I read in passing, and had to ask myself if I had totally missed that teaching in Catholicism. I'm glad a supernatural conception (without male involvement) isn't considered necessary. I do understand the difference (I think) between Catholicism's original sin, which carries a penalty of guilt, and the Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin, which means we are under the curse of death, but not personally culpable for Adam's sin.

I am unsure if Catholics maintain that original sin is the consequence of intercourse? I think that's the source of the confusion.

I believe Catholics require the dogma of the IC in order to preserve Christ from original sin? Maybe I'm fuzzy on the mechanism that requires this to be so?

I do understand the problem for Orthodox with this - making Christ something "other than" the Son of Man, fully human by virtue of His taking flesh from the Theotokos, if she is not indeed like the rest of humanity. "That which is not assumed is not healed."

Thank you for the replies. I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed such a major point.

I'm happy for further input on the details as well. Thanks all!

 

[Catherineanne]

Thanks, everyone. It was something I read in passing, and had to ask myself if I had totally missed that teaching in Catholicism. I'm glad a supernatural conception (without male involvement) isn't considered necessary. I do understand the difference (I think) between Catholicism's original sin, which carries a penalty of guilt, and the Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin, which means we are under the curse of death, but not personally culpable for Adam's sin.

I am unsure if Catholics maintain that original sin is the consequence of intercourse? I think that's the source of the confusion.

I believe Catholics require the dogma of the IC in order to preserve Christ from original sin? Maybe I'm fuzzy on the mechanism that requires this to be so?

I do understand the problem for Orthodox with this - making Christ something "other than" the Son of Man, fully human by virtue of His taking flesh from the Theotokos, if she is not indeed like the rest of humanity. "That which is not assumed is not healed."

Thank you for the replies. I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed such a major point.

I'm happy for further input on the details as well. Thanks all!

This may sound simplistic, but as I see it Orthodoxy is far more welcoming and tolerant of mystery than Catholicism. Where Catholics might say in effect; 'this is how, this is why, this is our explanation', Orthodoxy might say, 'this is the mystery; we affirm its reality; we prefer not to state dogmatically how it is achieved'.

Anglicans can take either approach; mine would tend towards the latter.

 

[Albion]

I feel kind of dumb for having to ask this. Either I somehow missed the implications in something I was told, or I've somehow developed amnesia of this point. But I need to ask to know for sure, rather than assume.

Does the teaching of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary say that her parents did not conceive her in the normal way, so as to protect her from the stain of "original sin"?

Is the teaching then that she was conceived of the Holy Spirit, as Christ Himself was, just not of a virgin mother?

No, it just means that God supposedly "made" her conception be an exception by exempting her from Original Sin. The conception itself was otherwise unremarkable.

And is this unique (I'm thinking) to the Catholic Church, though allowed if one wants to hold it as a Lutheran or Orthodox?

I believe that the Orthodox see it the same way as RCs, but that Lutherans ordinarily reject it as unsubstantiated by Scripture, although Luther himself apparently accepted it as true and some individual Lutherans do.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This may sound simplistic, but as I see it Orthodoxy is far more welcoming and tolerant of mystery than Catholicism. Where Catholics might say in effect; 'this is how, this is why, this is our explanation', Orthodoxy might say, 'this is the mystery; we affirm its reality; we prefer not to state dogmatically how it is achieved'.

Anglicans can take either approach; mine would tend towards the latter.

Hmmmm.

In essence you are right. Orthodox do leave many things in the realm of mystery - stating simply that "we do not know". That may be why vain speculation is not particularly counted as a virtue among Orthodox and indeed, I've watched some people tread paths of speculation that might not be good for their salvation. (Not on this site. And not to set myself as anything better ... It's just a sad truth that it's often easier to recognize failings of others while being blind to our own.)

I can't recall who, but they made a good point. A poster here on CF once pointed out to me that the Catholics were under more pressure to define things as history played out. That may be part of the reason. The scholastic influence as well? But yes, they certain explain things in more detail. In many ways that can be a strength, but when it goes beyond the bounds of what we (as Orthodox) believe include the faith once delivered - there we must disagree.

But as Orthodox, we are perfectly comfortable with the idea that there are some things God chose not to reveal to us, and to accept mysteries. For me, it doesn't take away from the faith at all, but actually I see it as a strength.

Thanks for commenting regarding Anglicanism. They are probably the least-understood by me of the Traditional Churches.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, it just means that God supposedly "made" her conception be an exception by exempting her from Original Sin. The conception itself was otherwise unremarkable.


I believe that the Orthodox see it the same way as RCs, but that Lutherans ordinarily reject it as unsubstantiated by Scripture, although Luther himself apparently accepted it as true and some individual Lutherans do.

Thank you, Albion. I'm relieved to know it isn't as different a teaching as someone implied to me the other day.

As Orthodox, we generally reject the idea of the IC as well as the need for it, since we don't view "Original Sin" as the Catholics do. I just know that if an Orthodox person WANTS to believe in the IC, they won't be excommunicated for it or anything. Same as the Assumption of the Theotokos as opposed to her dying a natural death. Though it becomes more difficult for me to see how an Orthodox can believe that one, given that we celebrate the Dormition.

I was told that allowing one to hold these beliefs as personal pious belief was allowed for the sake of Catholic converts to Orthodoxy.

It seems to me the living Assumption can be tied to the IC - I wonder if she is supposed to be not under the curse of death as the rest of humanity in that case? I think the two teachings came about close in history?

I'm not surprised Lutherans would tend to reject those teachings as well. I'm guessing they would be allowed, again as personal pious opinion? If Luther himself supported it.

I don't wish to cause disagreements though. I only wanted to clarify matters, and I'm glad to know the IC doesn't require the same kind of beginning through which Christ became Incarnate.

 

[Albion]

Thank you, Albion. I'm relieved to know it isn't as different a teaching as someone implied to me the other day.

As Orthodox, we generally reject the idea of the IC as well as the need for it, since we don't view "Original Sin" as the Catholics do.

That's true and it would seem to make the IC a different matter from how it's seen in the West.

I just know that if an Orthodox person WANTS to believe in the IC, they won't be excommunicated for it or anything. Same as the Assumption of the Theotokos as opposed to her dying a natural death. Though it becomes more difficult for me to see how an Orthodox can believe that one, given that we celebrate the Dormition.

The Assumption belief is that her CORPSE was assumed into heaven, not that she didn't die a natural death.

I was told that allowing one to hold these beliefs as personal pious belief was allowed for the sake of Catholic converts to Orthodoxy.

Sounds likely.

It seems to me the living Assumption can be tied to the IC - I wonder if she is supposed to be not under the curse of death as the rest of humanity in that case?

No.

I'm not surprised Lutherans would tend to reject those teachings as well. I'm guessing they would be allowed, again as personal pious opinion? If Luther himself supported it.

I more or less let that one pass because I preferred that a Lutheran answer you there. On the one hand, Lutherans are firmly committed to Sola Scriptura and there is zero evidence in Scripture to support the Assumption (and almost none to support the IC). Even the RCC admits that. In addition, Lutheran churches often take the view that every article of faith is essential for members to believe. They are much less inclined to do what Anglicans do and allow for areas that are non-essentials.

But it depends on which Lutheran body we're speaking of. You have the Confessional Lutherans (LCMS and WELS) who are doctrinally strict and comprehensive. But you have the ELCA churches that are co-workers with The Episcopal Church and have generally coordinated their doctrinal profile with TEC. Enough said about that, I assume.

So, maybe a Lutheran will answer to this for you. One thing is worth mentioning in closing, though. What Luther personally believed on some of these matters isn't taken to be automatically authoritative among Lutherans.

I'm glad to know the IC doesn't require the same kind of beginning through which Christ became Incarnate.

No...and that's for sure.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That's true and it would seem to make the IC a different matter from how it's seen in the West.


The Assumption belief is that her CORPSE was assumed into heaven, not that she didn't die a natural death.


Sounds likely.


No.

I more or less let that one pass because I preferred that a Lutheran answer you there. On the one hand, Lutherans are firmly committed to Sola Scriptura and there is zero evidence in Scripture to support the Assumption (and almost none to support the IC). Even the RCC admits that. In addition, Lutheran churches often take the view that every article of faith is essential for members to believe. They are much less inclined to do what Anglicans do and allow for areas that are non-essentials.

But it depends on which Lutheran body we're speaking of. You have the Confessional Lutherans (LCMS and WELS) who are doctrinally strict and comprehensive. But you have the ELCA churches that are co-workers with The Episcopal Church and have generally coordinated their doctrinal profile with TEC. Enough said about that, I assume.

So, maybe a Lutheran will answer to this for you. One thing is worth mentioning in closing, though. What Luther personally believed on some of these matters isn't taken to be automatically authoritative among Lutherans.


No...and that's for sure.

Thanks again, Albion. I'll see if Lutherans answer this one. I'd be curious, but it's a bit of a side issue.

Regarding the Assumption - maybe I'm using the wrong terms? I think I'm overtired - I'm having trouble getting words to say what I want today.

I only know that I spoke to Catholics who told me they believed that the Virgin Mary did not die, but that she was assumed bodily into heaven while alive. Maybe this is one of those places where I didn't adequately check more opinions, since the Marian dogmas were not of as much concern to me personally as understanding salvation, justification, sin, sanctification, punishment, and so on.

Hmmm. I had to take a moment to check a few Catholic sites, and I see there is apparently some confusion among Catholics, because (presumably) Pope Pius XII wasn't explicit. Interesting. Well, I learn new things all the time. It seems there apparently IS some debate on the matter. That's actually surprising to me, since one thing Catholicism is very good at is tightly defining teachings.

 

[Albion]

Regarding the Assumption - maybe I'm using the wrong terms? I think I'm overtired - I'm having trouble getting words to say what I want today.

I only know that I spoke to Catholics who told me they believed that the Virgin Mary did not die, but that she was assumed bodily into heaven while alive.

They misunderstand their church's teaching if that's the case. And they may think that what happened to Mary is of course supposed to be parallel to Christ's Ascension. But it's not.

As I said, even the RCC admits that this is a belief that grew up because various of the claimed burial sites for the Virgin were supposed by someone or other to have been found to be vacant when opened, ergo, an Assumption was hypothesized.

It seems there apparently IS some debate on the matter. That's actually surprising to me, since one thing Catholicism is very good at is tightly defining teachings.

So it would seem.

Incidentally, and because you mentioned Anglicanism a few posts back, the day is celebrated as the Assumption in the RCC, as the Dormition in the EO and...in the Anglican calendar, and when observed, it's the feast of 'St. Mary the Virgin.' All pretty representative of the respective churches' views, when you think of it.

 

[Cappadocious]

Many RC do hold that Mary was assumed without dying; it has not yet been dogmatized.

 

[Catherineanne]

But as Orthodox, we are perfectly comfortable with the idea that there are some things God chose not to reveal to us, and to accept mysteries. For me, it doesn't take away from the faith at all, but actually I see it as a strength.

Yes, I think it is a strength as well. I prefer my God and his many wonders to remain mysterious.

Thanks for commenting regarding Anglicanism. They are probably the least-understood by me of the Traditional Churches.

We are very broad, to the extent that it is almost impossible to say 'Anglicanism is... ' without someone (often me!) saying, 'Actually, that isn't always true ...' This can be difficult to understand, and other churches might think it better if we were a bit more sure of ourselves; a bit more willing to draw lines. But I like the breadth; I like Anglicans being able to travel from extreme Evangelical points of view to high Anglo Catholic ones while remaining within the same communion. This is often reflected even at a parish level, where evangelicals can often be found worshipping alongside catholics relatively happily.

 

[Albion]

Many RC do hold that Mary was assumed without dying; it has not yet been dogmatized.

We've already referred to the fact that individuals apparently do believe that, and there's been some speculation about why they might do so.

But it's not what their church teaches. To say that the erroneous thinking "has not yet been dogmatized" suggests--wrongly IMO--that it is under consideration, that there is a movement in that direction, or perhaps that there's any basis for making a misunderstanding into a dogma. None of that is the case.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's odd to have Orthodox and Anglican folk answering a question asked about Catholic dogma.

The CCC answers the question you asked, dear sister Kylissa. Here is the relevant section.

Paragraph 2. "CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"

I. CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. . .

484 The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates "the fullness of time",119 The time of the fulfilment of God's promises and preparations. Mary was invited to conceive him in whom the "whole fullness of deity" would dwell "bodily".120 The divine response to her question, "How can this be, since I know not man?", was given by the power of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you."121

485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son.122 The Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of Life", is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

486 The Father's only Son, conceived as man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, is "Christ", that is to say, anointed by the Holy Spirit, from the beginning of his human existence, though the manifestation of this fact takes place only progressively: to the shepherds, to the magi, to John the Baptist, to the disciples.123 Thus the whole life of Jesus Christ will make manifest "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power."124

II.... BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY

487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

Mary's predestination

488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":126

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.127

489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living.128 By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age.129 Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.130 Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established."131

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143

Mary's divine motherhood

495 Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord".144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos).145

Mary's virginity

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:
You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147

497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfilment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150

498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark's Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus' virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. the meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ's mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary's virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord's death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God's silence."153

Mary - "ever-virgin"

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."160

Mary's virginal motherhood in God's plan

502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.

503 Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161

504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary's womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164

505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God".166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man. the spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Saviour: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169

507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170

IN BRIEF

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

509 Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself.

510 Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (⇒ Lk 1:38).

511 The Virgin Mary "co-operated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (LG 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.




119 ⇒ Gal 4:4.
120 ⇒ Col 2:9.
121 Lk 1:34-35 (Greek).
122 Cf. ⇒ Jn 16:14-15.
123 Cf. ⇒ Mt 1:20; ⇒ 2:1-⇒ 12; ⇒ Lk 1:35; ⇒ 2:8-20; ⇒ Jn 1:3 ⇒ 1-34; ⇒ 2:11.
124 ⇒ Acts 10:38.
125 ⇒ Gal 4:4; ⇒ Heb 10:5.
126 ⇒ Lk 1:26-27.
127 LG 56; cf. LG 61.
128 Cf. ⇒ Gen 3:15, ⇒ 20.
129 Cf. ⇒ Gen 18:10-14; ⇒ 21:1-2.
130 Cf. ⇒ I Cor 1:17; ⇒ I Sam 1.
131 LG 55.
132 LG 56.
133 ⇒ Lk 1:28.
134 ⇒ Lk 1:28.
135 Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.
136 LG 53, 56.
137 Cf. ⇒ Eph 1:3-4.
138 LG 56.
139 ⇒ Lk 1:28-38; cf. ⇒ Rom 1:5.
140 Cf. LG 56.
141 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
142 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
143 LC 56; St. Epiphanius, Panarion 2, 78, 18: PG 42, 728CD-729AB; St.
Jerome, Ep. 22, 21: PL 22, 408.
144 ⇒ Lk 1:43; ⇒ Jn 2:1; ⇒ 19:25; cf. ⇒ Mt 13:55; et al.
145 Council of Ephesus (431): DS 251.
146 Council of the Lateran (649): DS 503; cf. DS 10-64.
147 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn 1-2: Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. B.
Lightfoot (London: Macmillan, 1889), 11/2, 289-293; SCh 10, 154-156; cf.
⇒ Rom 1:3; ⇒ Jn 1:13.
148 ⇒ Mt 1 18-25; ⇒ Lk 1:26-38.
149 ⇒ Mt 1:20.
150 Is 7:14 (LXX), quoted in Mt 1:23 (Greek).
151 Cf. St. Justin, Dial. 99, 7: PG 6, 708-709; Origen, Contra Celsum 1, 32, 69: PG 11, 720-721; et al.
152 Dei Filius 4: DS 3016.
153 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Eph. 19, 1: AF 11/2 76-80: cf. I Cor 2:8.
154 Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880.
155 LG 57.
156 Cf. LG 52.
157 Cf. ⇒ Mk 3:31-35; ⇒ 6:3; ⇒ I Cor 9:5; ⇒ Gal 1:19.
158 ⇒ Mt 13:55; ⇒ 28:1; cf. ⇒ Mt 27:56.
159 Cf. ⇒ Gen 13:8; ⇒ 14:16; ⇒ 29:15; etc.
160 LG 63; cf. ⇒ Jn 19:26-27; ⇒ Rom 8:29; ⇒ Rev 12:17.
161 Council of Friuli (796): DS 619; cf. ⇒ Lk 2:48-49.
162 ⇒ I Cor 15:45, ⇒ 47.
163 ⇒ Jn 3:34.
164 ⇒ Jn 1:16; cf. ⇒ Col 1:18.
165 ⇒ Lk 1:34; cf. ⇒ Jn 3:9[ETML:C/].
166 ⇒ Jn 1:13.
167 Cf. ⇒ 2 Cor 11:2.
168 LG 63; cf. l Cor 7:34-35.
169 St. Augustine, De virg. 3: PL 40, 398.
170 LG 64; cf. 63.​

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Both Orthodox and Catholics generally believe Joachim and Anna were barren like Sarah and Abraham, Elizabeth and Zachariah. So the Virgin Mary's conception by Joachim and Anna was a wonder, like the conceptions of Isaac and John the Baptist.

Roman Catholics believe that this wonder had to include the prevention of original sin. Orthodox do not believe this was necessary.

It seems very odd that the first two instances of barrenness are recorded in scripture, yet the other is not. So to assume that the wonder of Isaac and John the Baptist applies to Mary is based only on speculation, not at all like Isaac and John Baptist.

 

[Cappadocious]

Cassia,

We do not believe that our only two options are "explicit" Scripture or speculation.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Cassia,

We do not believe that our only two options are "explicit" Scripture or speculation.

Do the Roman Catholics believe that Isaac and John the Baptist's birth had to include the prevention of original sin?