I'm trying to understand the Immaculate Conception

FireDragon76 · Aug 25, 2016

I have been trying to grapple with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I come from primarily an Eastern Christian background so it is not something I have considered much before. So, I'm trying to understand this doctrine. I'm not a Bible-only type of person so I'm willing to seriously consider the Christian tradition.

1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation . I don't have a problem with that. There's lots of pious language, east and west to that effect (though Protestants might not like it, it's there in the tradition).

2) But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone?

3) St. Gregory Nanzianzus said what is not assumed is not healed. Some Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theologians would tend to say that Christ, in assuming our fallen human nature, healed us- the Incarnation is the true locus of atonement (with the Cross being the consequence of that- and this wouldn't even be a rare thing for mainline Protestant theologians, moving atonement away from juridical categories).

The IC doctrine risks making the Incarnation about Mary's choice, rather than Christ's divine person healing us ... or am I missing something? Is it a case of "both/and"? If it's both/and, it seems to be taking Mariology in the direction of Sergei Bulgakov's Sophianism, something that some Orthodox Christians consider heretical. Or even Jung's insinuation that Mary should be seen as something like another divine person. Especially if we take a Palamist or "Lutheran resourcement" view of grace (that it is the activity of God or gift of God himself, and not a created thing or merely an attitude of God).

Wolf_Says · Sep 7, 2016

I will try to answer as good as I can and see if I can help you out

FireDragon76 said:
1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation . I don't have a problem with that. There's lots of pious language, east and west to that effect (though Protestants might not like it, it's there in the tradition).

Not really, the Immaculate Conception merely states that Mary was born without sin. She was still born by normal means (intercourse) but that by the Grace of God, her soul was born without the stain of original sin and that she remained sinless because she was to birth our Lord Jesus, who is God and therefore is completely free of sin. It makes sense that Jesus would have to be born of a sinless woman, since He too is sinless since He is God. The only part that Mary had in the Incarnation was saying "yes" to God and becoming pregnant with Jesus.

FireDragon76 said:
2) But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone?

God has a plan, and it was written that the world would receive a Messiah. We really cannot fully comprehend why God does what He does, but only Mary was born sinless. If I had to guess though, I would say probably because since we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and it was them who took humanity out of grace with God, Mary is more so the exception to the rule rather than the rule herself.

FireDragon76 said:
The IC doctrine risks making the Incarnation about Mary's choice, rather than Christ's divine person healing us ... or am I missing something? Is it a case of "both/and"? If it's both/and, it seems to be taking Mariology in the direction of Sergei Bulgakov's Sophianism, something that some Orthodox Christians consider heretical. Or even Jung's insinuation that Mary should be seen as something like another divine person. Especially if we take a Palamist or "Lutheran resourcement" view of grace (that it is the activity of God or gift of God himself, and not a created thing or merely an attitude of God).

Let me make this clear, Mary is not God, and should not and is not worshiped. I know you are not stating this per say, just wanted to get that out there. If Mary had not said "yes" when asked by the Angle then idk what would have happened, but I would assume that God would have made another "Mary" and asked her a few years later. So in a way, the incarnation did hang upon Mary's freewill to say Yes or No, but it would have happened regardless.

The incarnation of Jesus was when He was conceived, but He didn't truly heal the world and reopen the gates to heaven until He died. Jesus died for our sins so that we could get to heaven and be with God.

I hoped this helped, maybe somebody else will also answer in a better way than I did.

FireDragon76 · Sep 7, 2016

According to the RCC, was Mary born subject to death? What exactly is the "stain" of original sin. Not all these terms are obvious.

Wolf_Says · Sep 7, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
According to the RCC, was Mary born subject to death? What exactly is the "stain" of original sin. Not all these terms are obvious.

On original sin
CCC 389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/original_sin.html

On Mary, http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

FireDragon76 · Sep 7, 2016

What is "original justice"? Adam and eve were created perfect? Then why would they choose to sin?

There's a lot of concepts there that need further explanation, that the catechism doesn't deal with.

The stain of original sin is inherited by all humans at the moment of conception and brings its effects of ignorance, concupiscence, death and suffering.

Is the stain also death? So Mary was conceived as an immortal being? Was Christ also naturally immortal in his humanity? And why does the Church Tradition imply that Mary suffered, if she was conceived free of this "stain"?

Hieronymus · Sep 7, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
I have been trying to grapple with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I come from primarily an Eastern Christian background so it is not something I have considered much before. So, I'm trying to understand this doctrine. I'm not a Bible-only type of person so I'm willing to seriously consider the Christian tradition.

1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation .

A vessel rather.
A blessed vessel.

thecolorsblend · Sep 7, 2016

www.churchfathers.org is a handy source for a lot of traditional teachings. There's a section specifically for Our Lady and refers to the Immaculate Conception. It seems pretty obvious that the Church Fathers believed in those things.

newlightseven · Sep 7, 2016

Mary was able to have a baby while being a virgin because the power of the highest over shadowed her (the holy spirit).

myarogancewasblottedout · Oct 23, 2016

read "apocryphon of Saint John"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

If you don't want to read it all, search for "perfect Pronoia of all".
Christ made his own seed for Himself. without 'causality' ( causality is mere observational ~law and not some mandatory definition of reality.)

===========
american's shoreline is shaped like electron (gulf of california = welcome of covalent bond)
europe is surface of proton Psalms 18:9
India is integration of 1/infinity.
1D = lengths (wavelength)
2D= surface Genesis 1:10 (x-axis and y-axis Genesis 1:6 )
3D
4D = time (Genesis 1:14)
5D is single event's multiple alternative futures. (a fish may turn left or right in a moment, THUS 2 futures)
6D is multiple 5D moments, think of plans.
all possible futures .
7D = many all-possible futures = divine laws.
holy bible is alive, as Christ the word.

Standing Up · Oct 26, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
I have been trying to grapple with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I come from primarily an Eastern Christian background so it is not something I have considered much before. So, I'm trying to understand this doctrine. I'm not a Bible-only type of person so I'm willing to seriously consider the Christian tradition.

1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation . I don't have a problem with that. There's lots of pious language, east and west to that effect (though Protestants might not like it, it's there in the tradition).

2) But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone?

3) St. Gregory Nanzianzus said what is not assumed is not healed. Some Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theologians would tend to say that Christ, in assuming our fallen human nature, healed us- the Incarnation is the true locus of atonement (with the Cross being the consequence of that- and this wouldn't even be a rare thing for mainline Protestant theologians, moving atonement away from juridical categories).

The IC doctrine risks making the Incarnation about Mary's choice, rather than Christ's divine person healing us ... or am I missing something? Is it a case of "both/and"? If it's both/and, it seems to be taking Mariology in the direction of Sergei Bulgakov's Sophianism, something that some Orthodox Christians consider heretical. Or even Jung's insinuation that Mary should be seen as something like another divine person. Especially if we take a Palamist or "Lutheran resourcement" view of grace (that it is the activity of God or gift of God himself, and not a created thing or merely an attitude of God).

My understanding is that the dogma is based on bad science of the time. The assumption was the mother provided the baby with its blood. Mary's blood had to be pure. Thus immaculate conception. Since then, we've learned the baby "makes" its own blood. And so, I suppose, we go back to your comments with that awareness.

Radrook · Dec 12, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
What is "original justice"? Adam and eve were created perfect? Then why would they choose to sin?

There's a lot of concepts there that need further explanation, that the catechism doesn't deal with.

Is the stain also death? So Mary was conceived as an immortal being? Was Christ also naturally immortal in his humanity? And why does the Church Tradition imply that Mary suffered, if she was conceived free of this "stain"?

Being a perfect human doesn't entail incapability to suffer.

zippy2006 · Dec 29, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation . I don't have a problem with that. There's lots of pious language, east and west to that effect (though Protestants might not like it, it's there in the tradition).

If you accept that she can be a true cause of the Incarnation, then...

The IC doctrine risks making the Incarnation about Mary's choice, rather than Christ's divine person healing us ... or am I missing something? Is it a case of "both/and"? If it's both/and, it seems to be taking Mariology in the direction of Sergei Bulgakov's Sophianism, something that some Orthodox Christians consider heretical.

...Why can't it be both/and?

2) But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone?

Mary's Immaculate Conception exists by virtue of Christ's Passion, death, and resurrection. Jesus is Mary's savior. Mary was conceived without sin so that Jesus could be born of and raised by the Immaculate Virgin. There is no savior but Jesus, but Mary is saved in a special way.

3) St. Gregory Nanzianzus said what is not assumed is not healed. Some Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theologians would tend to say that Christ, in assuming our fallen human nature, healed us- the Incarnation is the true locus of atonement (with the Cross being the consequence of that- and this wouldn't even be a rare thing for mainline Protestant theologians, moving atonement away from juridical categories).

Good question - I'm not sure.

WarriorAngel · Jan 17, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
According to the RCC, was Mary born subject to death? What exactly is the "stain" of original sin. Not all these terms are obvious.

She died.
But her body was assumed to Heaven...ie her body completely disappeared.
If St Michael the arch angel fought with satan over Moses - and we know Moses appeared with Jesus on the mountain, then the one who bore our Lord... would be preserved and risen.

The 'stain' is our separation from God's Presence in the flesh due to sin.
All have it.

MarysSon · Feb 8, 2017

Standing Up said:
My understanding is that the dogma is based on bad science of the time. The assumption was the mother provided the baby with its blood. Mary's blood had to be pure. Thus immaculate conception. Since then, we've learned the baby "makes" its own blood. And so, I suppose, we go back to your comments with that awareness.

The Immaculate Conception has absolutely nothing to do with Mary's blood.
Blood is physical - not spiritual.

The Immaculate Conception can be best understood if you take it in its proper context.
Simply put - Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant - the fulfillment of the Ark of the Old Testament.

Whereas the symbols of God’s word were contained in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, Mary actually carried God himself - the Word - in her womb in the New Testament. And, whereas the Old Testament Ark had to be made of pure materials and blessed and undefiled, how much more pure and undefiled would the vessel that actually carried God have to be?

The following are examples of the OT types and their NT fulfillment (Mary).

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).

NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mar, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

WarriorAngel · Feb 16, 2017

Mary was created to carry the Creator and give Him flesh.
So He gave her the PRE-GIFT of Baptisimal graces in the womb... before His death and Resurrection - as though it already occurred for her.

NOW for the Koine Greek word used in scriptures....[never used before or after]
Kecharitomene -
which describes a "perfection" and "abundance" of grace. In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement.

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle. Kecharitomene means "having been" or "have already been" graced.

This was the true greeting the angel Gabriel gave her.

In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' "(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

mea kulpa · Mar 27, 2017

If our lady is the ark of the new covenant and she was preserved from the stain of original sin at the very moment of her conception. Surely we would find something similar at the conception of the ark of the old covenant

In exodus 25 God tells moses

"Have them make an ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high.c 11Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out"

At the word of God at his command the ark was to be made out of mere wood just as our lady the ark of the new covenant would be a mere human being

But the wood was to be overlayed at Gods command by pure gold inside and out

Just as our lady the ark of the new covenant at Gods command was made sinless and pure inside and out from the moment of her conception

PanDeVida · Mar 27, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
I have been trying to grapple with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I come from primarily an Eastern Christian background so it is not something I have considered much before. So, I'm trying to understand this doctrine. I'm not a Bible-only type of person so I'm willing to seriously consider the Christian tradition.

1) It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception would imply that Mary was a cause (in the Aristotilian sense) of the Incarnation . I don't have a problem with that. There's lots of pious language, east and west to that effect (though Protestants might not like it, it's there in the tradition).

2) But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone?

3) St. Gregory Nanzianzus said what is not assumed is not healed. Some Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theologians would tend to say that Christ, in assuming our fallen human nature, healed us- the Incarnation is the true locus of atonement (with the Cross being the consequence of that- and this wouldn't even be a rare thing for mainline Protestant theologians, moving atonement away from juridical categories).

The IC doctrine risks making the Incarnation about Mary's choice, rather than Christ's divine person healing us ... or am I missing something? Is it a case of "both/and"? If it's both/and, it seems to be taking Mariology in the direction of Sergei Bulgakov's Sophianism, something that some Orthodox Christians consider heretical. Or even Jung's insinuation that Mary should be seen as something like another divine person. Especially if we take a Palamist or "Lutheran resourcement" view of grace (that it is the activity of God or gift of God himself, and not a created thing or merely an attitude of God).

Fire,

It seems that Martin Luther, that once Augustinian priest turned Revolutionary, upheld belief in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (even before it was declared a dogmatic doctrine in 1854 by Pope Pius IX). The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception and from all sin during her life — that she was conceived, lived, and died without any taint of sin.

The eminent Lutheran scholar Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) has also confirmed that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception even as a Protestant. Here is Martin Luther in his own words:

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin”

– Martin Luther’s Sermon “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527.

“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.

– Martin Luther’s Little Prayer Book, 1522.

Both quotations derive from Luther’s writings after his break from Rome.
by Patrick Madrid

Martin Luther the founding father of Lutherism/Protestantism preached/believed in the Immaculate Conception, even has a Lutheran believed and preached this. Is Martin Luther tossing and turning in his grave, thinking to himself, what has become of my church, what have I done?

Fire, I read that you are a Lutheran, why does the Apple/Fire fall so far away from the tree/Martin Luther re: The Immaculate Conception? Are you truly a Lutheran, in good standing with Martin Luther? I say this because, as a Catholic, if I don't believe in any of the Dogmas/Teachings of the Catholic Church, then I am not a Catholic, I'm a protester a Protestant, I would be out. Again, are you still Lutheran?

Fire, just because Mary was/is The Immaculate Conception aka Created Without Sin does not make Her Devine, NO MORE than Adam and Eve who was created without sin, make them Devine. You will say, However Adam and Eve were created not born. And I tell you, there had to be a New Eve/Virgin Mary born without sin because She shares Her DNA with the New Adam/Jesus Christ. Its all in the DNA. Things of the Old Testament Begins Anew/Fulfilled in the New Testament, Just as Salvation will be born because of Virgin Mary's Yes. And,The beginning of the Old Testament between man and a woman sin entered the world, so in the New Testament between Man and Woman Salvation entered the world.

Fire re: your Q. number 2 "But, if God can grant grace to make someone conceived without sin, and restored to the original grace of Adam and Eve, why doesn't he do this for everyone"? Fire the answer to your question is: God can do all things for His Grace abounds and has no limit. The reason is through Eve sin came into the world by her yes to the Angle/satan by her having the fruit. God rectified this by the Immaculate Conception's YES, to the Angle Gabriel, by having the Fruit/Jesus that takes away the sins of the world.

Standing Up · Apr 5, 2017

MarysSon said:
The Immaculate Conception has absolutely nothing to do with Mary's blood.
Blood is physical - not spiritual.-snip-

The question they were trying to answer was how can original sin in Mary (like in us all) be prevented from "entering" the pure Jesus without sin? They answered we'll make Mary pure at her conception (RC) or at her agreement with the angel (EO).

What they didn't know was the mother's blood has nothing to do with the baby's blood. It's about the Father.

Walsinghsm Way · Jul 8, 2017

It has been my understanding that the Immaculate Conception is one of the most misunderstood teachings about the divine maternity of Our Lady (even though as an Anglican, albeit an Anglo-Catholic I am not convinced of its suitability as a dogma that must be believed for salvation). What it most certainly does not say is that Mary did not need to be saved/redeemed. It sort of retroactively applies the grace and merits of the Cross to her in view of what God knew she would become.

This is important, because in the Incarnation the Second Person of the Trinity Himself became Man by asuming our nature -from Mary! Christ in His human nature was in all ways like us save (without) sin, and, as Paul takes pains to point out that Christ is the New Adam, this implies that the human nature that Jesus took from Mary was not the nature as corrupted by sin -otherwise He could not be withou sin, as sin is in our nature as fallem creatures, not merely in our choice to sin- but rather the same nature that Adam and Eve had at their creation before they sinned and Fell: this is known as nature in the state of Original Justice. For this to happen , how could Mary herself retain the stain of Original Sin, and not pass on that sin-nature to her Son?

The doctrine then, teaches that God, in view of the merits and dignity Mary was to have as Mother of God, was, saved by a special act of preveinent grace on the part of God, applying to her -and in her case only, not going any further back down the chain, so to speak- the grace won for us all by the Cross at the moment of her conception in the womb of Joana, her mother.

In essence she was redeemed in the womb by a ripple effect of the Cross.

CatholicCrusader · Jul 29, 2017

May I?

What is original sin, or the "stain" of original sin as it is sometimes called? Contrary to popular thinking, original sin is not a thing, but rather it is the lack of a thing - specifically, a lack of sanctifying grace.

Sanctifying Grace is what is needed to enter heaven. Due to the sin of Adam, we are born without that grace.

The Blessed Virgin was preserved from this defect by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

We receive God's grace at a point in life after our birth, whereas the Blessed Virgin received that grace at the moment of her conception.

Does that make it a little easier to understand?

I'm trying to understand the Immaculate Conception

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

In the confessional

Active Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

I close my eyes and see you smile

Active Member

I close my eyes and see you smile

Benedictine Traditional Catholic

Well-Known Member

On and on

Active Member

Papal Crusader

Similar threads